2010-08-12
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have given leave to the member for Goyder to make a personal explanation. I remind members this is not a debate, and members should listen with courtesy.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, yesterday, the minister for Environment claimed I said on yesterday’s morning radio:
The statement is completely incorrect and untrue and it is disappointing the minister is gilding the lily. What I said on yesterday’s morning radio is as follows - listen carefully, minister:
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 47 petitioners relating to the application by the Northern Territory Christian Schools Association to establish a non-government school in Baniyala. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, before calling on government business, I would like to make a few comments.
I am very concerned our parliament is being brought into disrepute because of poor behaviour. I urge all members to remember they are representing the people of the Northern Territory, and they certainly deserve better.
I remind you standing orders are, in fact, for all members.
I was also very concerned, when listening to the Channel 9 coverage of yesterday’s Question Time, it was reported an opposition member was recorded using profane language, and the member’s voice was heard with a bleep over the profanity used. I am not certain who the member concerned was, however, I ask whoever the member was to withdraw the comment and apologise to the House. I remind all members profane language is never parliamentary and will result in immediate withdrawal from the Chamber.
It is very disappointing no member will admit to having said that.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent bills titled Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill 2010 (Serial 118) and Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 (Serial 119):
Mr WOOD: I am always concerned about bills coming through on urgency ...
Ms Lawrie: It is not urgency.
Mr WOOD: It is not urgency?
Ms Lawrie: No, it is cognate. They are consequential amendments dealing with all the changes to oaths, affirmations and declarations.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, the first point of clarification, this is not a motion of urgency; this is a motion of cognate. The reason we are dealing with the bills together is simply because we are proposing, through the legislation in the bills, to change the process currently before the court of oaths, affidavits and declarations - changing it from the existing wording and language to simple words: ‘I promise to tell the truth to this court’.
These changes are proposed and arise out of two separate reports of the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee. The first report was in 1983, the second report a year ago. As Attorney-General, I have taken the advice of the NT Law Reform Committee. It was prompted by a request by the Chief Justice, Brian Martin, to simplify the language for people appearing before court, particularly those people who come from a non-English-speaking background - and this is particularly pertinent to Indigenous members of the Territory who appear before the court.
I am advised by practitioners in the court the current complex ‘Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?’ language is very difficult to translate. Two different reports from the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee have said simplify the language to: ‘I promise to tell the truth to this court’; basically, to make what sounds like a relatively simple change.
Obviously, debate in the next sittings will determine whether people want to see that change. This is simply an introduction and an opportunity for me, as Attorney-General, to propose the bills. It triggers changes across a raft of different laws, which is why we are proposing to do it as cognate bills.
Motion agreed to.
Bills presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a second time.
The purpose of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill is to amend the Oaths Act by repealing it and replacing it with a new act, the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill 2010.
Currently, section 22 of the Oaths Act provides that unless otherwise requested, and whether in judicial proceedings or otherwise, an oath is to be administered and taken in the following manner:
the person taking the oath shall, standing up, hold a copy of the Bible or New Testament or Old Testament in his hand; and
Section 8 of the act provides any person may make an affirmation in lieu of taking any oath. Section 9 provides every affirmation shall commence with the words: ‘I, X, do solemnly, sincerely and truly affirm’, and then shall proceed in the same words as the oath as required or permitted under the law.
In accordance with section 9 and Schedule 7 of the Oaths Act, a person making an affirmation before a court shall be addressed by an officer with: ‘Do you solemnly, sincerely and truly affirm and declare’, etcetera, and shall then speak the words: ‘I do’, or otherwise signify agreement.
The issue of the language used for the taking of oaths and affirmations in court has been considered twice by the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee. In 1983, the Law Reform Committee considered whether there was a need to simplify the language used by the court in seeking to ensure a witness understands they must tell the truth. The majority of members of the Law Reform Committee recommended the current provisions concerning the taking of an oath be abolished and replaced by a standard simpler form of affirmation. The 1983 report was not acted upon in respect of that issue.
In September 2007, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, Hon Brian Martin, wrote to the then Attorney-General, Mr Syd Stirling, about this issue. Chief Justice Martin wrote that the judges of the Supreme Court were of the view formal language of the current oath and affirmation were ‘singularly inappropriate’ for many witnesses of all ethnic backgrounds. In his letter, the Chief Justice also noted there were difficulties in converting this formal language into appropriate Aboriginal languages and many Aboriginal witnesses for whom English was not their first language had difficulty understanding the formal concepts when translated.
The judges of the Supreme Court at that time were all in favour of amending the Oaths Act to enable the adoption of simple language more likely to be understood by witnesses. The Chief Justice had canvassed magistrates, the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency, the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission and the Director of Public Prosecutions. There was general agreement the current wording of the oath and affirmation be replaced by a simple promise to tell the truth.
In 2008, the Law Reform Committee was asked to investigate the implementation of the proposal made in the 1983 report and to consider the letter of the Chief Justice. The Law Reform Committee reported the 1983 report considered the decline in Christian religious belief and the fact the number of people of other religions was increasing. However, the Law Reform Committee noted that in 2008 it was more accurate to state a belief in divine sanction, or at least the more fearsome of them - for example, eternal damnation and punishment - had declined. As such, the Law Reform Committee considered whether there was ‘any reason to retain a specifically religious oath, rather than using the same form of words for all witnesses, by affirmation in which the witness simply promises to tell the truth’.
The Law Reform Committee concluded any affirmation should be in simple terms immediately understandable by a witness. The Law Reform Committee considered various alternatives and concluded the most appropriate form to be: ‘I promise to tell the truth to this court’. Thus, the Law Reform Committee recommended the witness be asked: ‘Do you promise to tell the truth to this court?’ In response, the witness would indicate affirmation.
The Law Reform Committee recommended all witnesses should be asked the same question and no other form of oath need be retained. In this case, there would be no need to ask any witness if they preferred some other form of words to be used. It was agreed there is no need for witnesses to be treated differently based on their religious beliefs or lack thereof. Therefore, the same question should be asked of all witnesses. This approach reflects the one suggested by the Chief Justice, and is still supported by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. The Law Reform Committee recommendations also have the support of the former Chief Magistrate, Ms Jenny Blokland and former Northern Territory magistrate, Ms Melanie Little.
The Law Reform Committee also noted that since 1983, the trend towards simplicity of language has continued and been accelerated in other jurisdictions. I thank members of the NT Law Reform Committee for their time and consideration of the issues. This government has agreed to implement the 2008 recommendations of the Law Reform Committee through amending the Oaths Act.
Although the Law Reform Committee focused on court proceedings, it became apparent during drafting of the amendments, to give effect to their recommendations, the scope needed to be widened to affidavits and other situations where a person may be required to take an oath; for example, applications for warrants or complaints made on oath, an oath of an interpreter, or an oath of a juror or office holder.
In the Oaths Act, the oath required for the taking of an affidavit or other situations is not distinguished from the taking of an oath from a witness in court. It appears from the Law Reform Committee’s report the two justifications for changing arrangements for witnesses in court are to simplify the process and remove the need to distinguish between people based on their religious beliefs or lack thereof.
These same considerations apply in relation to affidavit evidence or other situations, including oaths of allegiance or office. This is despite the Law Reform Committee stating oaths of allegiance should not be changed because they are more a matter of formality rather than simplicity.
A further issue was subsequently raised. It was suggested the oath be administered by the presiding judge or magistrate, as happens in Timor-Leste, rather than by a court officer. There was general support for this in the context of courts. It became apparent during drafting of amendments that Parts II, III and V, and most of Part VI of the act would need to be repealed and replaced. On advice from the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, given this would see most of the act being repealed and replaced, it seemed more appropriate to draft an entire new act rather than amend the existing one. This is the bill before this house, a new Oaths, Affidavits and Statutory Declarations Bill 2010.
The bill implements the recommendations of the Law Reform Committee providing a new oath for witnesses, being a promise to tell the truth to the court. The bill provides a comprehensive regime, although it does allow for other acts to make different provision:
replacing the current oath/affirmation with a promise to tell the truth, not only as recommended by the Law Reform Committee for witnesses in court, but in all situations requiring an oath;
for who can administer an oath, in what circumstances. In particular, the new oath/promise will be administered by the presiding judicial officer in court. For tribunals, the current situations for the majority of tribunals will become the norm, whereby any sitting member from a tribunal can administer an oath; and
how the oath should be administered.
The bill also allows for alternative forms of administration of the new promise. If the person taking the oath wants to take the oath in another form - for example, taking a religious oath - or have it administered in another way, they can do so if the person administering it is satisfied they understand the consequences of taking an oath and the person is taking it honestly and in good faith, intending to be bound by it.
It is noted the Law Reform Committee considered there was a slight risk a witness, when asked if they would tell the truth, may ask the philosophical question: what is the truth? The Law Reform Committee stated in such rare cases the court could use its discretion to determine if such a response was a genuine objection to the words and, if so, formulate a different procedure.
The bill now provides some basic provisions as to how affidavits are to be made. These are based on section 9 of the Western Australian Oaths, Affidavits and Statutory Declarations Act 2005 and existing NT court rules. Other provisions in the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill generally replicate the balance of the current provisions in the Oaths Act.
The Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 amends various acts and subordinate legislation consequent on the reform of the wording of the oath. A number of the consequential amendments:
provide for a person/body to require a person appearing before it to give evidence on oath. This links with the definition of a ‘tribunal’ in the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill 2010 being an individual or body, other than a court, authorised by law or consent of the parties to take evidence, or otherwise gather information, on oath;
make consequential changes to ensure uniformity of terminology.
I thank the Chief Justice for bringing the judges concerns about the form of the oaths to government’s attention. I thank the Law Reform Committee for their recommendations.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bills to honourable members, and I table a copy of the explanatory statements.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 9 June 2010.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, the opposition supports this bill, the contents of which are straightforward, although someone reading it may think it is complicated. There are areas of moderate complexity, however this will make our justice system better; it will improve matters for witnesses and victims. Some of these changes are overdue and we welcome them.
The intention is to amend the Justices Act and the Youth Justice Act, and there are additional amendments in relation to that. The objective is to streamline the way committal proceedings are conducted. When the Attorney-General indicated the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee would work on this I indicated my support. My long-standing view is anything which makes it better for witnesses, and victims in particular, can only be a good thing.
A high level of care is necessary when changing this type of legislation and the way proceedings in our courts are undertaken. I had minor difficulties with some points and spoke with lawyers whose views I trust - they are much more experienced in criminal law than me and know much more. I identified things I thought were mildly problematic; they assured me they were comfortable with them so I took the view: far be it for me to ride solo on issues which provide me discomfort; I am guided by them. I will not go through the issues for that reason.
The bill removes the need for witnesses to attend and give evidence at preliminary examinations; it restricts cross-examination by the defendant under situations where leave is granted by the court and having regard to whether it is agreed to by the prosecution, and whether it is in the interests of justice; they incorporate minor drafting and grammatical errors, which is pleasing. I pay a special and heartfelt tribute to those responsible for getting rid of the ‘z’ – this is not the first time I have raised this. I look forward to further amendments which replace ‘z’ in our legislation with ‘s’. I hope the momentum continues.
The Attorney-General’s second reading speech referred to the purpose of the bill; to streamline committal proceedings to avoid situations where witnesses attend court unnecessarily. The main objectives of the bill were to relieve stress on witnesses associated with giving evidence at committal and trial, and to ensure committals are run more efficiently. Anyone involved with courts of the Northern Territory will know committals have presented a range of problems, and the Attorney-General touched on some in her second reading speech. They include the fact it is not uncommon for witnesses to turn up to court and find they are not required; problems police and others have finding witnesses, serving summonses and arranging travel, particularly in our bush communities. I have firsthand knowledge of the difficulties DPP have experienced over the years and anything which makes that better is good.
The Territory taxpayer bears the burden of the additional costs created by some of the problems. Witnesses and victims are put through the stress of attending, thinking they will have to give evidence. Often when they turn up they find they are not required, or not required today, come back tomorrow.
Although it has changed as a result of legislation a year or so ago, traditionally it was always a nightmare for children when giving evidence. Court starts at 10 am. The support person would take the child, usually with a parent, to court and they would sit in a room which was less than satisfactory. There was paper for the child to draw on, and some toys. Most people, even those without children, know they are invariably at their best early to mid-morning. If a child is waiting all day and finally gets on at 3 pm or 3.30 pm, they are not going to be at their best. That was the experience described to me. Those improvements need to be made, and the needs of witnesses and victims need to be carefully, thoughtfully considered by decision-makers. The objective is for them to be at their best when giving evidence.
We heard, in the preceding bill introduced by the Attorney-General, the oath has been changed. Having read the bills and heard what the Attorney-General said, my view is it is a good thing. The reality is 80% to 90% of the traffic through our courts is Aboriginal people. They find - as everyone finds except the lawyers - proceedings to be very difficult. No wonder we have such an appalling conviction rate. No wonder it is difficult for juries to produce findings of guilt. An average person would be confused by legal proceedings. If we can make the oath better for witnesses - whether they are Aboriginal witnesses or not, but noting the reality in the Territory - that can only be a good thing.
The Attorney-General, in her second reading speech, specifically referred to the trauma for victims. I am not the only one who has talked about that in this House, not only in the context of the old crimes compensation scheme, other contexts as well. Anyone with a passing interest in courts in the Territory will know the trauma for many victims, particularly in assaults, sexual assaults, and so on.
Some of the problems have been identified by the Attorney-General and are sought to be remedied by the bill. The proposals were recommended by the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee, so that is persuasive itself. Barbara Bradshaw from the Law Society, and I, have exchanged e-mails. The Law Society is supportive of it; which is also persuasive, so on behalf of my colleagues I support this bill. Time will tell whether we need to make amendments.
Madam Speaker, with legislation such as this it is probable, at some point, changes will need to be made and, as we see in a bill brought on urgency to be debated next Thursday, problems no one sees can arise years later. I suspect this is one of them. However, there is nothing in particular to worry us. It is the nature of the courts, particular proceedings, and the magistrates and judges who work in our court system. With that I will conclude.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition for their support for the change to committals. This is very significant reform and I am not underestimating the arguments for and against reforming committals. That is why I chose to ask the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee to look at this matter.
The matter was raised by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for consideration. Clearly, you always have to ensure, when looking at changes to court proceedings, you do so with eyes wide open and understand the pros and cons.
Sometimes changes to committals such as the reforms before us today are considered to be a disadvantage to defendants. Northern Territory Legal Aid, NAAJAS, and others have put their concerns on the record. As Attorney-General, I take on board the matters raised; equally I have been persuaded by the recommendations of the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee that, on balance, this is a fair procedural process to follow. We are not going to the extent some other jurisdictions have. We are providing for exercise of some discretion in the system, for checks and balances, to ensure those who want to raise matters on behalf of defendants do so at the lower court.
What drove this change was the recognition there is much stress on witnesses and many inefficiencies in the lower court. People are going through a trial at the lower court before going to a full trial at the higher court - the Supreme Court. We see clear duplication and stress on witnesses. The member for Araluen articulated well some of the issues, particularly matters with juvenile witnesses. Government, and the Attorney-General of the day, should turn their attention to the stress which impacts upon our vulnerable witnesses, our innocents, who have to appear.
Currently, paper, oral, or part oral/part paper committals are permitted and generally committals proceed as part oral/part written. This bill amends the Justices Act and the Youth Justice Act to provide for committals to proceed as paper or hand-up committals, with a full oral committal only conducted where justified. That is where the check and balance comes in - there is still an ability to trigger a full oral committal in circumstances where the parties can argue it is justified. In that respect, we have erred in trying to capture what is a fair and streamlined process, removing stress from witnesses; however, giving a fair opportunity for people to argue for a full oral committal in the lower court.
Where a youth and an adult are charged with offences arising from the same course of conduct, committal proceedings for both may be heard together. There has been a flaw in the system and they could not be heard together -again duplication and additional stress on witnesses.
We understand this is a significant reform. We will provide fact sheets for the public in courts which will explain the new committal process. The information will also be placed on the Department of Justice website. The Department of Justice will conduct briefings and education sessions for legal practitioners in Darwin and Alice Springs over the coming months. We do not propose this legislation commence until 1 March 2011, to give everyone ample time to be fully informed of the changes.
This is modelled on committal proceedings in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and those recently introduced in the Queensland parliament. At the recommendation of the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee, some elements of the Victorian legislation have been adopted. The bill provides where a youth and an adult are charged with offences which arise out of the same incident, their committals can be heard together, which makes sense.
The bill increases the time the prosecution must serve on the defendant the written witness statements they intend to rely on from 14 days to 28 days; again a sensible change. The defendant will not be able to question a prosecution witness unless permission to do so has been sought and granted by a justice. The justice must grant leave if the prosecution has consented to the cross-examination. The bill outlines the reasons the justice can grant permission, and provides a list of issues the justice must consider. That is where we are putting checks and balances into these reforms. The bill also includes a number of amendments which make it clear the Chief Magistrate has power to make rules and practice directions to ensure committals proceed smoothly.
The draft discussion bill was sent to the Chief Justice, Chief Magistrate, Director of Public Prosecutions, Commissioner of Police, Acting Anti-Discrimination Commissioner, Department of Health and Families, Youth Justice Advisory Committee, the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency, the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service, Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission, the Law Society of the Northern Territory, the Criminal Lawyers Association of the NT, and the Northern Territory Bar Association.
The draft discussion bill and an explanatory statement were placed on the Department of Justice website. An advertisement inviting comments from the general public was placed in the NT News over three consecutive Saturdays, and comments were provided by stakeholders including the magistrates, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, NT Legal Aid Commission and NAAJA. No comments were received from the general public. As a result of comments received from stakeholders, amendments were made to the draft discussion bill. We have undertaken significant consultation.
The subcommittee of the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee was asked to consider options. The subcommittee consisted of the Chief Magistrate, the Director of Public Prosecutions, representatives of the Bar Association and the Law Society of the NT, the NT Legal Aid Commission, the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency, Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service and members of the Northern Territory Police. A draft bill was prepared based on the recommendations of this subcommittee, which was distributed far and wide.
We are different to Western Australia and Tasmania, where committals have effectively been abolished. We have taken a path which provides for the checks and balances we have seen operating in other jurisdictions such as New South Wales. We have not abolished committals, as Western Australia and Tasmania have; we are following the fair path capturing the better aspects of South Australia, New South Wales, Victoria and the ACT’s committals reforms.
Objections came from the then Principal Legal Officer at NAAJA and the Principal Legal Officer at CAALAS. They had been members of the Law Reform Committee which looked into this matter. It is the practice of the Law Reform Committee to record dissent of members; there was no dissent by any member of the subcommittee of the Law Reform Committee when it finalised its report.
Both Mr Dooley and Mr Riley have said publicly they consider the reforms will disadvantage Indigenous defendants because there is a possibility of police producing statements from Indigenous witnesses without an interpreter and paraphrasing statements in a way which results in inaccuracies. They have also said the reforms will result in greater expense and delay. During public consultation on the draft bill, NAAJA reiterated these concerns and advised it does not support the reforms.
We have properly considered these concerns. The government is not abolishing committals - I put that first and foremost. Committals have been abolished in Western Australia and Tasmania. We are not taking away the ability of defendants to test the evidence of the prosecution at committal. The government acknowledges well-conducted committals promote efficiencies in the criminal justice process. If, in a particular matter, there are concerns about the accuracy of a witness statement due to language or any other reason, the defence may apply for leave to cross-examine the witness at the preliminary examination. If the prosecution consents, the justice must grant leave.
If the prosecution does not consent, the defence must satisfy the justice there is an issue to which the proposed cross-examination relates, and there is a reason why the evidence of the witness is relevant to that issue. If there are real concerns a witness statement is not accurate, the defence needs to tell the justice why and in what regard.
Regarding the concern of increased cost and delays, government considers there will be a decrease in cost and delay. However, we acknowledge the concerns, which is why I have directed the Department of Justice to conduct a review of the legislation 12 months after its implementation. We are not saying we will crystal-ball gaze the outcome.
We are confident this is the right reform for the Territory. Why are we confident? We have had a body of experts - the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee - go through this with a fine-toothed comb and find a pathway forward. We have not fully abolished committals; we have put checks and balances into the system to allow arguments to occur for an oral committal.
I acknowledge and thank the opposition for their support of this bill. I have placed on the public record concerns have been raised in relation to this reform of committals. I have also put on the public record where we believe those concerns are found to be wanting.
Madam Speaker, I have some committee stage amendments which are required as a consequence of our proposed changes to the Youth Justice Act which is to be debated next Thursday.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 6, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 7:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 41.1 which amends clause 7 of the Justice Legislation Amendment (Committals Reform) Bill 2010. The reason for this amendment is to make a minor correction to the proposed section 105F(1)(a). This provision deals with the requirement for witness statements and exhibits in the prosecutions committal brief. Written statements must comply with certain formal requirements as they do under the current provisions of the Justices Act. These requirements are detailed in proposed sections 105F(2) where the witness is an adult, and proposed section 105F(3), where the witness is a child.
Proposed section 105F(1)(a) should refer to a written statement having to comply with either section 105F(2) or section 105F(3). This amendment corrects the omission of a reference to section 105F(3).
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 20, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 21:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 41.2. These amendments amend clauses 21 and 26. The reason for these amendments is a renumbering required by the introduction in these sittings of the Youth Justice Amendment Bill 2010. That bill will amend the jurisdictional provisions of the Youth Justice Act. A consequence of those amendments will be the creation of a new section 56A in the Youth Justice Act.
The bill before the Assembly today also has proposed section 56A. In order to keep all the jurisdictional provisions together, the proposed section 56A in this bill needs to be renumbered. By this committee stage amendment it will become section 56B of the Youth Justice Act.
Amendments 41.2 to 41.5 also deal with the consequence of this renumbering, ensuring when both this bill and the Youth Justice Amendment Bill 2010 are enacted, the numbering of sections in the Youth Justice Act will be correct.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 22 to 25, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 26:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I have just stated the reasons for the alterations to clause 26.
Amendment agreed to.
New Part 4:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 41.6, regarding new Part 4. The insertion of Part 4 into the Justice Legislation Amendment Committals Reform Bill is a consequential amendment to section 43M of the Criminal Code. Section 43M provides, if a question of fitness to plead arises during a committal proceeding, the committal is to be completed in accordance with the Justices Act. There is a reference to section 106 of the Justices Act which is repealed and not replaced by this bill. This amendment removes that reference.
New Part 4 agreed to.
Long Title:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 41.7. The amendment amends the Long Title of the bill to include reference to the Criminal Code. It is required as a result of the amendment to section 43M of the Criminal Code.
Amendment agreed to.
Long Title, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 8 June 2010.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I welcome debate on this very important report by the Auditor-General for the Northern Territory.
I commence by complimenting the Auditor-General for the thorough job he has done in reviewing this program. It is also fair to say this program has been the subject of a number of reviews, a number of which are ongoing. That is appropriate; it is $670m of taxpayers’ money. There has been controversy around this program, which I have acknowledged publicly, and the Auditor-General has referred to in his report.
To some degree, the contents of the report have already been debated in this House. It has been the subject of censure motions, questions, etcetera. I have read the report thoroughly, and I am sure other members have also.
SIHIP is well under way. There are 120 new houses complete or under construction. Subdivision clearing has commenced in Nguiu, Maningrida, Galiwinku and Wadeye. SIHIP, as I said, is a $672m program which will deliver 750 new houses, 230 rebuilds, and 2500 refurbishments by 2013. It is a significant and complex program spanning a number of years. It is not all about building houses; it is about delivering training, employment and real long-term outcomes for Indigenous people. We are exceeding training targets with over 250 local Indigenous people in employment and training.
SIHIP is working in 30 communities, with 67 houses complete and 53 under way and 456 rebuilds and refurbishments completed or under way, which is 106 more than at the June sittings of this parliament. By the end of the year, SIHIP aims to have 150 new dwellings complete, and 1000 rebuilds and refurbishments across the Northern Territory.
The Auditor-General’s report was tabled on 8 June 2010. The objective of his report was to assess the adequacy of the department’s performance management systems to enable it to assess the effectiveness, efficiency, and economy of its operations in relation to SIHIP. The audit also examined the administrative, financial and operational aspects of the program, from commencement in 2007 to date. It highlights factors affecting it since its commencement, and work done to ensure the program remains on track. The program identified the project’s scope, required outcomes, original and revised targets, and timetables. It provided insight into the problems faced since inception, and changes made such as the simplified governance system.
There are two key issues raised in the Auditor-General’s conclusion. First, financing constraints may present an impediment to achieving the SIHIP objectives; and the absence of management systems may not allow effective management and timely delivery of the program. These are major recommendations I have taken to heart, as minister.
I was heartened by the comments of the Auditor-General on progress made in addressing those two issues. I also took on board the comments by the Auditor-General that much more needs to be done; there needs to be further progress on addressing issues of governance and the management systems in particular. I have been engaged with my department on that issue.
Regarding financial constraints, it is acknowledged SIHIP is a challenging program. However, efficiencies achieved through the large-scale delivery of new houses will ensure funds are available for essential infrastructure works within the broader $1.7bn National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing to ensure the 750 new houses, 2500 refurbishments and 230 rebuilds are delivered within the $672m program.
Discussion occurred within the Estimates Committee in relation to Northern Territory government headworks undertaken to support SIHIP, and the roll-out of SIHIP over the 10 years of the project. We make no apology for altering the timing of our capital works in infrastructure expenditure to support SIHIP, particularly in our 20 growth towns, because it is a program worthy of support.
It is the biggest single Indigenous housing infrastructure rolled out in Australia’s history and remote areas of the Northern Territory stand to benefit greatly. We have an expenditure program in our Indigenous essential services, and to the extent we can support SIHIP we have altered the timing to work with SIHIP to avoid duplication at a later stage, or costly expansion of headworks once they are already in the ground. It is very important to take stock of that. We make no apology for expending monies in Indigenous essential services to support SIHIP.
The report acknowledges there was an absence of substantial management systems in the initial stages of the program. Both the Australian and Northern Territory governments have made a concerted effort to improve this aspect of the program, with a number of key management systems and processes established for monitoring the implementation of the program.
The external financial auditor of SIHIP is KPMG, whose role is to review the internal financial and procurement processes undertaken by the alliances. This is a key issue. We have an auditor with a national and international reputation for its ethical approach. It packs a large amount of punch in the accounting and auditing world. KPMG is charged with the audit of this program, and reporting that to the Australian and Northern Territory governments. That is an important element; there is ongoing monitoring by a respected and competent auditing company for this program.
KPMG has extensive experience with alliances across Australia and will continue to provide valuable advice on the progress of the alliances’ internal controls, reviewing all paid invoices and checking all payments are consistent with contractual obligations. That is an important statement following on from what I have said about KPMG.
This is recognised in the Auditor-General’s report, as well as the independent post-review assessment completed in March this year. Independent estimators are contracted to assess alliance estimates prior to government accepting a package. This information is provided to KPMG prior to auditing regular invoice payments, which is also an important aspect.
There has been criticism about the amount of monies paid to various consultants. KPMG is a consultant in this process, and the program managers work with the alliance partners in that context. If someone was to say, ‘We should do away with all the contractors’, you would be doing away with KPMG and their oversight and audit of this very important program.
The Auditor-General also pointed out in his report the administration costs of this program are below 8%, if I recall correctly. We have the level of administration costs right, and companies such as KPMG play a key role.
Ongoing government audits and review of operations of alliances will ensure correct progress payments are made. However, we will continue to be vigilant, as advised and recommended by the Auditor-General. A number of significant changes and achievements have contributed to improve management control systems, both with the alliances and the program as a whole. Both governments remain committed to addressing the findings of the three reviews by strengthening governance around SIHIP and other programs currently funded under the national partnership agreement.
Each package of work has a target number of refurbishments at an average cost of $75 000. However, alliances have been asked to refurbish houses in the community focusing on safety and health first, and then addressing other items. I acknowledge this has been a very controversial aspect of the program. I can understand why a number of Indigenous communities and individuals would be disappointed with the scope of works in the refurbishments, and would be possibly expecting a rebuild to be done on their house.
However, look at the average cost of a rebuild, which is just under $200 000, or the cost of a new house, with the average cost around $450 000, and the average cost of a refurbishment being $75 000 in a community like Santa Teresa where approximately 70 houses are being refurbished. For the amount of money being spent there, by my calculations, instead of 70 houses being refurbished and the kitchen, bathroom and electrical work being brought up to standard, you might only get 12 new houses. That means nearly 60 houses miss out altogether. You are probably looking at about two-and-a-half refurbishments for every rebuilt house.
You have to make those hard decisions. That was the decision taken by the federal government: they would go down the path of refurbishments. I can see the rationale for that. I also understand people’s disappointment in areas where they are not getting a rebuild or a new house.
Arrears in Indigenous housing are large and the genesis of it stretches back over many decades, through many federal and Territory governments. For federal governments which have the resources to improve this situation the demand is extraordinary, and a 10-year $1.7bn project is not going to fix it all. It needs a sustained commitment over many decades to address the issue of arrears in Indigenous housing across the Northern Territory, and it is going to take many billions of dollars to do that. There needs to be a clear understanding of that.
I have also called for the member for Braitling, and Tony Abbott, to clearly spell out their intentions with SIHIP. Are they going to support this $1.7bn project over 10 years if Tony Abbott comes to power? If he does, no doubt he will bring changes in and the Coalition and the CLP have been quite critical of SIHIP. However, are they committed to $1.7bn over 10 years, as a first tranche, and what after that? That is the challenge for both sides of politics, and I am interested to hear what the member for Braitling has to say.
I have read some of his comments in the Centralian Advocate. I am interested in more detail, particularly on the Parliamentary Record rather than a newspaper, of where the Coalition and CLP stand in ongoing funding for Indigenous housing within the Northern Territory. The member for Braitling feels passionately about this. He visited quite a number of communities looking at the houses, talking to people, as I have been doing - although our perceptions could be quite different. We can debate that. These are very important issues to debate, and I welcome the opportunity.
There have been media reports of some shires saying they can deliver refurbishments cheaper than is being delivered through SIHIP. I always look at those claims carefully. I have indicated on the public record I would like to see an evolution of SIHIP where there is more involvement of local organisations with the capacity to undertake refurbishments and employ local people. That is probably the next step for SIHIP; it would be a good direction to take. I have had initial conversations around that, and would like to see us pursue it.
Regarding the new houses and the rebuilds I have inspected - and I have a number of pictures of what I have seen. Here we have a house at Nguiu; a beautiful house. I have no doubt other members have seen these. That is another new house at Alice Springs Larapinta Town Camp.
The houses at Gunbalanya were constructed by Earth Connect and are being used as transitional housing. I visited recently; most houses are tenanted and people will stay there until their own houses are fixed and refurbished.
Several locations have been of interest. It is interesting once the building team start peeling off the wall to see the challenges which meet them in a structural and safety sense with electrical wiring, plumbing, and a whole range of things.
This shows a group at Wadeye taking possession of their house. This is another one at Wadeye. This one is at Milikapiti on the Tiwi Islands - that is the working group. We are hitting our targets in Indigenous employment. This shows a young bloke enjoying his job as a painter; this shows some awards with Territory Alliance.
Everyone recognises Mr Alan McGill; he is passionate about the program. He takes criticism of the program delivered by Territory Alliance very seriously. I have attended a number of meetings with Mr McGill on communities, the most recent at Maningrida. The community was able to feed back to him its concerns, which were mainly operational and community liaison matters. There will always be areas of tension and dialogue which need working through, and Alan McGill is the right man for that. They are proud of what they are doing and become upset when there is negative criticism, particularly unwarranted or ill-informed criticism, of the project.
Indigenous employment and training is a key element to this program. It is a key step towards Indigenous economic development which has not been achieved under most standard contracting arrangements, particularly building. The scope of works is discussed with the community through the Housing Reference Group prior to the government approving the work. Tenants will be expected to maintain their houses, and will be provided support to assist them in understanding their rights and responsibilities as tenants.
I will speak on that. We are talking about, in many cases, people who have had no experience of a formal tenancy; who, in many cases, do not understand their rights and obligations under a tenancy agreement. In many cases, people do not know what is required of them to keep the house and property in the right state. This is going to be a challenge and, like the whole Indigenous housing program itself, is not going to be solved overnight. We need to work with people and explain their rights and responsibilities.
I was direct with the community leaders at Maningrida about this. I said: ‘Along with the houses you are moving into there are some responsibilities about keeping the house and yard clean and tidy. If there is damage to the property, whether it is caused by you or someone else, to some degree you are going to be responsible for the damage to that property. As a government, we have responsibilities to you in repairs and maintenance’. That is where the Remote Rental Framework comes in to play, to ensure there are funds for the repairs and maintenance of houses produced through SIHIP.
We need to explain to people the rent and service charges they are paying are being reinvested into ongoing repairs and maintenance. We need to ensure people understand that, and it needs to be a transparent process. The Northern Territory is responsible for the ongoing repairs and maintenance of community housing assets. Therefore, it is practical to invest in durable works, fixtures and fittings in the first instance. Much has been written about SIHIP; there has been criticism of it. I acknowledge, as the Auditor-General pointed out in his report, much of that criticism has been justified. However, I point people towards the Auditor-General saying he believes the project is on track. He said on page 9:
That has been a complicating factor through the whole journey. As the Productivity Council noted in its 2004 report titled First Home Ownership:
The Auditor-General continued on page 9:
It is a massive job, as the Auditor-General points out. Even in the urban context there would have been enormous logistical challenges, let alone in the remote environment. Land tenure issues can also be difficult to negotiate through. He points to the pros and cons of the alliance model, which has been a point of conjecture. On page 15 the Auditor-General said:
The Attorney-General pointed to the issues associated with the alliance modelling. He also talked about the administrative costs, and I will quote from page 33:
and:
On page 47 he said:
He went on to say:
He then talked about significant increases in the estimated costs. It does pose a risk; I acknowledge that. We need to work very closely with the alliances and the federal government to ensure the program comes in on budget.
He raised the issue of essential infrastructure, and I believe I answered that saying the Northern Territory government supported the accelerated roll-out of infrastructure in communities to further support the headworks of SIHIP’s program.
I welcome debate on the Auditor-General’s report. I understand there is an ongoing Commonwealth Auditor-General’s report. In the June sittings the member for Braitling alleged fraud and was going to the Commonwealth Police. I have heard no more on that; possibly the member for Braitling could update us.
Madam Speaker, this program has been the subject of several reviews. I acknowledge it has had significant problems, however I agree with the Northern Territory Auditor-General: this program, despite its initial difficulties, is on track to deliver most, if not all, of what has been promised.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, SIHIP must be one of the most scrutinised federal and Northern Territory government programs in the history of the Northern Territory, and so it should be. A large amount of money has been set aside: taxpayers’ money. It is there to relieve overcrowding in Aboriginal communities and upgrade existing houses. There has been much controversy about how this program began and how it continues. I do not want to go into the history; we have debated the history many times.
Several issues still need to be addressed. The minister touched on one, and so did the Auditor-General. It is in relation to the alliance system. On page 15 of his report the Auditor-General said:
During debate in the last sittings I queried how we arrived at this alliance system. My understanding was a group of bureaucrats, after a workshop, said this was the way to go. I wonder if enough emphasis was given by people further up the chain of command to say: ‘Where are we heading with the alliance program?’ One of the major stumbling blocks we now have is uncovering the cost of this program. On page 38 of his report, the Auditor-General talked about total expenditure. He said when he breaks up the expenditure into personal wages, consultancies, operational expenditure, Territory Housing expenditure, capital works:
The Auditor-General cannot find those costs; neither can the Council of Territory Cooperation which, in its first report, asked for detailed quarterly reports. Recommendation 7 said:
The government commented this information would be drawn from the quarterly financial reports as indicated in response to Recommendation 8, and will include total cost in number of houses or work done.
Recommendation 8 of the CTC said:
The government response was:
That has not happened. If it has, it is nowhere near the extent we would expect. Because of the alliance program, we are told some of those details are commercial-in-confidence. However, the industry information session PowerPoint presentation made for prospective alliance partners on 13 April 2008 clearly stated under one of the key features there would be an open, honest and efficient sharing of information. Further back it said:
The alliance structure is difficult for me to understand; I am more used to a company tendering for a project where you know the cost. There is a blurred area. Even the Attorney-General cannot look into what the costs were.
There have been reports in this House of Toyotas purchased and money spent on items where people wonder what it has to do with the program. With a program where the federal and Northern Territory governments are partners in the alliance program, even the Auditor-General should be able to find out if costs are not really attributed to this program. The Auditor-General should be able to ask the cost of a house. We do not want to include the cost of the planning meetings - they were required to do that; one expects that to cost money. If you were really trying to compare the cost of a house at Port Keats, and Thamarrurr said they could produce a house much cheaper - they did not have to hold planning meetings, did not have to do scoping - you would need information about the concrete, the wiring, the lighting, the plumbing, the fencing, the landscaping, the sewerage, plus administration costs, plus travel, plus freight - the standard things you would require. You should be able to get that to have an idea of what houses are costing - a realistic price - and if someone says they can build a house cheaper, you can compare it.
I will give you a classic example. There has been much discussion about Willowra and other houses; councils can refurbish them at a cheaper price - they probably can. There are issues about quality. SIHIP has to do certain things to a certain standard. There are other added things. This information session report states there will be a code of conduct for construction - Commonwealth procurement guidelines require agencies to comply with the code. Further, under the safety commission, all contracts will have to fit in with the scheme established to improve occupational health and safety outcomes in the building construction industry which came into effect in March 2006. Councils may not have to do that; in fact, I doubt very much if they do.
To compare the refurbishments the alliance is doing with the refurbishments the council is doing you need to know those extra costs the SIHIP companies have to include in their $75 000. However, this alliance system seems to make that extremely difficult. For instance, I have asked if we could have a price on the eight houses refurbished at Milikapiti – no answer; it is part of a package. I would have thought that was a package on its own. The answer we receive all the time is: ‘You will get an answer when the whole package is completed’. That is fine. However, I would have thought an Auditor-General tracking the program should be able to say: ‘You, as an alliance partner, with all your accountants’ - do not forget we have a Commonwealth accountant and a Northern Territory accountant on the joint management program – ‘surely, any good business can break up costs for consultancies, an architect, and a safety audit’.
Whatever it is, with all the computers, all the management programs, surely our big building construction companies which make up these alliances have systems in place for their normal work? They do not build a building without some fairly detailed breakdown of the costs; they could run their project right off the Richter scale. They need to keep an eye on all costs so it remains in budget. Why can these companies not deliver details of what is being spent? It is very difficult for us to say: ‘Yes, it is going well. We understand there are some difficulties. What are those difficulties? Have you been spending money on unnecessary things?’ Even if they are required to spend that by the Commonwealth government, we would say: ‘Silly Commonwealth government, you have wasted money in that area’.
It is very difficult to grasp this program without being able to understand the costs of houses and refurbishments. Until that happens, we will keep receiving criticism about someone else being able to do it cheaper. It is fair enough to say that; I cannot say SIHIP is doing a good job unless I can show the job is either a better quality job - because they are required under the program to do a better quality refurbishment than the council - and they have had to include all those administrative costs the council did not because it already has that covered under its own budget.
That is a big area, minister. The CTC does not have the power to do this. The federal and Territory governments have to say: ‘When you signed up for this, you and the government said there would be payment under a compensation model comprising reimbursements of program costs on an open-book basis’. If it is not an open-book basis, how can the community have faith the reimbursements are correct? How do we know someone is not rorting the system if the open-book policy does not work?
The other issue I have is the system called the pain gain, pain share, and the gain share - I get confused. I presume it means if a company does very well it gets extra payments. If no one knows the real cost of the house, can the books be manipulated to suggest ‘we have done very well, therefore, we expect extra payments’? There is a commercial framework in this document. It talks about direct costs, corporate overheads, something called ‘M cost profit’ which, I believe, stands for minimum conditions of satisfaction in performance gain share. That is why I have trouble understanding this.
It is a program used on one of our construction contracts at the moment. Macmahon is using a similar program. If you have an open book system that is transparent - it is actually mentioned twice in this document. Under the heading Ensuring value for money it says: ‘open book accounting and auditing’. As our Auditor-General asks in his report, why can he not get the required details? This is a key factor if this program is to continue.
I do not agree with the member for Braitling that SIHIP has problems so scrap it. It is easy to say, and I feel that way sometimes myself. But the reality is there is a contract with the alliances to run the program until 2013. To pull the plug on the alliance now may cost far more than planned expenditure, which would be to the disadvantage of Aboriginal people. That does not mean there should not be criticism. However, I would not pull the pin. We need to monitor the program to ensure it is reaching targets, and doing it in the most efficient and cost-effective manner. Until we know what money is being spent directly on houses and what is being spent elsewhere, that is very hard to do.
The Auditor-General also mentioned payments. On page 40 he talks about overpayments. He said there are systems in place which have improved that. As it is difficult to get these details, how do we know? There might be overpayments; were they deliberate or accidental? I have trouble understanding how you can have an open book policy. The Auditor-General seems to have difficulty obtaining the details we need to ensure things are running smoothly and legally.
I am not accusing any alliance of any wrongdoing. The Auditor-General’s job is to ensure everything is okay. My question is: if he cannot find the figures, how can he say everything is okay? If he cannot see this documentation, how does he know everything is okay? Certainly, he has KPMG looking after things but they are working on a benchmark. We need to ensure this is an open book policy.
Statements have been made recently that there will be smaller subdivisions. I am not sure what that means. Issues have been raised about it at Wadeye, and about the houses being slightly smaller. I am not concerned about houses being smaller; it is an issue because it is about cost. The houses still look good to me. They may have gone from 4 m to about 3.6 m; the difference is marginal.
The issue regarding infrastructure worries me because we have moved the infrastructure portion from the original SIHIP project to another bucket of money. Someone would have said: ‘How much are these new subdivisions going to cost?’ received a price, which would come from the bucket of money. I have heard there is not enough money for the subdivisions as they were intended. Why? If the federal government said it would take infrastructure money from this bucket of money - which is about $1.1bn - why is it being capped to reduce the size of the subdivision? There needs to be an explanation.
It is important we know because the Auditor-General mentioned one of the major concerns is CPI increases are not taken into account. This is set up until 2013 expecting houses to be delivered at $495 000. There is no way a house will be delivered at $495 000, especially if steel is involved. There is going to be a new pricing system for iron and bauxite, which will be reflected in the price of steel and aluminium. That will reflect on the price of building a house. Has any consideration been given to CPI increases? The Auditor-General mentioned it in his report. At page 47 he said:
The question I ask is: you have a figure that X number of houses will be built in 2013 using $695m; what is going to happen? Are we going to receive extra money to achieve that because the cost of materials is increasing, or are we going to make the houses smaller, or with fewer bedrooms, to ensure the program is achieved within budget?
This has been a fault in the program from the very start, especially with refurbishments. On refurbishments, the CTC visited Santa Teresa and looked at houses. The minister said there is a limitation on money, and I understand that. Minister, the reality of what you see on the ground makes me wonder whether the politicians who made this decision understand its impact on the community. I will give you an example. You spend $75 000 fixing up the laundry and the toilet of a house. You paint the house, put in some new windows; that is good. However, you leave the verandah covered in dirt - like a sand verandah. If I went to the community and said: ‘I would like to congratulate Mr and Mrs Smith on their new refurbished house; they have a lovely kitchen and a lovely toilet’, I would be embarrassed if they had to walk through the sand on the verandah to get there.
I am not saying it is easy; people making those decisions need to have more information. It might have been better to do the whole of Santa Teresa this year and not the next town. Budget considerations have to be taken into account. Let us do one community completely this year and tell the other communities they are next.
We have tried to be nice to everyone; we have spread the money and done half the job. We have quantity but not quality, which is where we have not thought this through.
The government might have said it was going to do programs in Central Australia because most are on five-year intervention leases and had to be done quickly - that is another issue. What will happen to these houses when the five-year leases run out? Who owns them; who will pick up the rent?
On the subject of leases, beside the financial side of it, leases are the number one issue if this program is to succeed. You are putting public houses on private property; you require a lease - fair enough – however, we are dragging our heels. There are all types of leases: 44-year precinct leases; 99-year town leases; five-year intervention leases; ordinary section 19 leases, and leases for the townships. We have made leasing an art form when normally it is not. It is not only this government - I should not be blaming this government - the federal government decided much of this; we have had to cope with decisions from down south. The CTC has written to Mrs Macklin and we have not received a response. I know it is election time, however, I would have been happy to meet her at a house at Santa Teresa. It is not so much about politics; we all want a practical program to improve Indigenous housing, and we want it to be realistic. I am unsure if they have their feet on the ground in Canberra when dealing with these issues.
Another issue is the sacking of Earth Connect. The CTC was told there would be a smooth transition; the Territory Alliance would take over. My understanding is that has not happened and Earth Connect is unhappy. I would like the minister to explain the latest on Earth Connect. Why are they not happy? What are the issues involved in their dispute with the government? How much delay has occurred in the housing at Groote Eylandt because of the changeover? We thought a one-month delay and things would be rosy.
I raise the Groote Eylandt issue for the sake of the member for Braitling. At the last sittings he mentioned houses being demolished. He said: ‘Gerry Wood said these were wonderful houses’. These were not the houses we saw. We were shown certain houses and they were good. The blocks might not have been perfect - and I know where the blocks come from now. The house was good. I have photos of the buildings that were demolished. They are not buildings. One was a floor - that is the floor. One was a series of posts which needed demolishing because they were crooked - there they are - they were just stumps. If you look at more pictures you will see some are not even at right angles. The other one is a floor pad, just gravel - that is it. We did not see those. Unfortunately, in the debate people inferred three houses were demolished; it was not the case. I am sure the CTC was not taken to those three sites. I could see if a pile was crooked or straight, and you can see they were not up to standard.
When we criticise SIHIP we should do it accurately, otherwise we do not do the debate justice. I want the program to succeed. I do not think anyone wants an Aboriginal housing program not to succeed. We want constructive criticism which needs to go back to the government.
Another key issue the minister mentioned is tenancy. That is as big a challenge as building the houses, and is an area I hope the CTC can continue to monitor. The houses at Port Keats are pretty good. People admonish me for saying I would not mind one of those. I will take people to my house, then through a house a Wadeye. If you think I am kidding when I say I would prefer one of the houses at Wadeye, you will know why. I have a 25-year-old demountable going down the middle of a house with brick walls on either side. Cockroaches love it, because they can walk underneath. You have to be fair; the houses are good quality houses.
There are some things we should look at, minister, such as refurbishments. Could it be reviewed and councils or local housing associations do the refurbishments? Why is that a job for the alliance? The other issue is infrastructure. Perhaps we should have put that out to companies involved in infrastructure, and the new subdivisions a separate tender. Builders can build the houses and not worry about putting in roads, sewerage and electricity. The government may have to take the lead in relation to leases. The SIHIP alliances should not have to worry about leases.
That path should be clear before they get there; leasing arrangements should be sorted. It is a key area if we want to make this program move quickly. If you have five-year intervention leases and we have spent umpteen million dollars on refurbishing houses, we need a tenancy arrangement where someone collects money for those houses. My understanding is, once that five-year intervention lease runs out, you do not have any right to collect money from those people. You will have spent taxpayers’ money on a house you cannot collect money for. That is an area I would like to hear about. What is the state of these houses on the five-year intervention leases?
Madam Deputy Speaker, this will continue to be debated, and I hope it does. It will continue to be criticised, and I hope it does. However, I hope it is done in the right context. In the end, we want good-quality houses in Indigenous communities to reduce overcrowding and to change people’s lives. Until that is done, we will keep going backwards. This might be a difficult phase we are going through, but we need to do it. We need to criticise, we need to look at what is happening so the outcomes can be better. It will not only be better for the taxpayers, it will be better for Indigenous people in the Northern Territory.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, it has been a fairly constructive debate so far, and I thank the minister and the member for Nelson for that. I will try to be as constructive as possible. There has been much debate over the Auditor-General’s report. There has been much media coverage. This program seems to be the gift that keeps on giving. The minister covered a number of areas in the Auditor-General’s report of concern. I do not want to go over those again.
One issue raised was I had suggested there was fraud. I questioned whether there could, potentially, be fraud within this program. On page 40 of the Auditor-General’s report he stated the issues identified had resulted in some overpayments being claimed by alliances. We need to get to the bottom of whether those claims were deliberate. That is where the question of potential fraud comes into it. This is not putting negativity on those businesses involved; we need to have a full understanding of that. The Auditor-General’s report was a desktop audit. As the member for Nelson suggested, it was not a full forensic audit with open access to all documents, all payments, all consultants fees, so we could understand where monies had gone.
You spoke about management systems not being quite right. That is well recognised in the report; it was very poor. I will not go into a political attack about how your government failed in that area. However, if you have poor management systems, and alliance contractors repeatedly putting in incorrect claims, you must investigate if there was a fraudulent intent. That is why I referred it to the Federal Police Commissioner; you had not allowed for this to be thoroughly investigated in an open and transparent process. I can update you on the request to the Police Commissioner, a copy of which you received. I received an e-mail on 1 July from a federal police officer; I will not name the person:
I am paraphrasing some words.
It goes on. They are still considering it, to answer your question. That is an update.
It is not saying, as suggested by you and the Chief Minister, that we are trying to cast aspersions over businesses within the alliance model or any subcontractors. That is not the case at all. We need to ensure there is no fraud, and no misconduct.
SIHIP has been a failure. I know government will meet targets. You will build 750 ‘things’. You will complete your rebuilds and your refurbishments. It is the quality of what you build. Instead of building a four-bedroom house with a verandah to reduce overcrowding, you are building a two-bedroom house. That is the concern, although it still accounts for your numbers. At Gunbalanya, in the member for Arafura’s electorate, looking at a place there …
Ms Scrymgour: They rang me as soon as you arrived.
Mr GILES: Sorry?
Ms Scrymgour: They told me you were there.
Mr GILES: That is good. There were eight one-bedroom units in the block. I do not have the address to identify it. Does that count as eight refurbishments or one - it is all in one house structure? This is where your failures are because it is not addressing the needs of overcrowding, and not addressing the needs of housing in the long term.
The member for Nelson spoke about leases and asked what happens after five years. That is a valid concern. People believe after five years the houses will go back to the previous ownership structure, and there will be no rights for Territory Housing to put in place a new management model, despite having the 10-year funding under the national partnership agreement. We will be back into that same cycle.
If you look at the $1.7bn 10-year national partnership agreement, and the five-year SIHIP - the five years is the first choice, not the 10 years - at the end of this program there will not be any long-term solutions for Indigenous housing in the bush.
Later today we will be debating telecommunications. I understand there are two different models in telecommunications. One is where one side of politics want to fund a big roll-out, and the other where there is a smaller amount of money being put in to leverage the private sector.
Regarding Indigenous housing, the SIHIP model has moved to what we might call the NBN-type model, where government does everything. SIHIP should have had a more strategic approach to leverage private sector money, get more money for a longer term and, at the end of the five-year SIHIP cycle, at the end of the 10-year NPA, we do not need more money because we have not finished things. That is the smarter model path you should have taken. I will argue similar things about telecommunications later.
It is also important to correct history in relation to the SIHIP model. I know government likes to blame everything on the Country Liberal Party forever and a day, and likes to say it was Mal Brough – in your words, with a gun to the head - for the alliance model. This was raised in depth with both the Chief Minister and the Minister for Housing at the Estimates Committee. Going through the memorandum of understanding signed in September 2007, dot points 8 and 9, I will quote 8:
That was $793m. I am unsure how it reached $550m, or where the other approximately $200m has gone. If you could clarify that in your final statement that would be good, minister. Do we need to pursue where the Indigenous dollars have gone - whether they have gone into other programs? That agreement stated $793m.
Point 9 says:
Clearly, that has not occurred: performance-based contracts based on outcomes being achieved. There has been much commentary about the gun to the head. On 9 June 2010 the Housing minister said in this House:
He went on further to say:
This agreement says you can do it how you want. That is the agreement you signed as government. I am going through this to prove the point so we can clarify history. The member for Casuarina, who was the …
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr GILES: The member for Casuarina spoke on 29 April 2010 and said:
The memorandum of understanding you signed said it was up to you; it was given to you to manage. I quote the member for Casuarina, when he was Minister for Housing, 1 May 2008, from his ministerial statement:
That is seven months after a change of federal government; seven months after the change in the MOU. We have lost $230m-odd out of the program …
Dr Burns: How do you calculate that? Can you go through that calculation again - the $230m?
Mr GILES: The MOU said $793m, plus $100m from the NT government. The $647m spoken about by the member for Casuarina, who was the Housing minister at the time - he talked about $647m, including the $100m, so $547m from Commonwealth dollars. This is the minister’s statement of 1 May 2008. We have gone from $793m to $547m; there is a discrepancy in federal dollars. I would like to know where that has gone; whether it has been siphoned off to other projects or what has happened.
Further in the minister’s statement he said:
Clearly, this is your model. This is no gun-to-the-head Mal Brough model. I will defend Mal Brough; he provided the $793m. You chose the alliance model, live with it ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, if I could interrupt you, we have reached midday and you will have the opportunity to conclude your remarks following Question Time.
Debate suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have given my leave to the member for Braitling to make a personal explanation. I remind you that a personal explanation is not a debate, and I ask you to show the courtesy of silence during the member for Braitling’s personal explanation.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, yesterday in the House I made an unparliamentarily comment off camera which was picked up by the Chamber recording system. I would like to withdraw that comment and apologise.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Braitling.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, earlier I spoke of my concerns that fraud could have occurred; I stand by this. Things could have happened, whether deliberate or otherwise. Territorians, particularly Indigenous Territorians, have been defrauded by the programs of Indigenous housing and SIHIP. They were promised so much, yet Labor had delivered so little …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member is making unsubstantiated allegations Territory businesses have defrauded Territorians. The Auditor-General’s report shows there is no fraud.
Ms CARNEY: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker! It is clear the member was not making those allegations; he was suggesting various things may have happened. He did not make any specific allegations against any company or individual.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, if you could remember the standing orders and keep within those.
Mr GILES: Madam Speaker, I completely understand the standing orders. This is not to say any businesses may have done the wrong thing, however, it is important when the Ombudsman …
Ms Lawrie: Auditor-General.
Mr GILES: … identifies invoices were put in incorrectly, we have to have a full and thorough audit of all the paperwork. The Auditor-General was only able to do a desktop audit.
Indigenous Territorians were defrauded by SIHIP; they were promised so much and received so little. They were promised, in the memorandum of understanding signed in September 2007 between the Australian and Territory governments, $793m in funds from the Australian government, plus $100m from the Northern Territory government. In May 2008, the then Housing minister, the member for Casuarina, said a total of $647m, which included $100m from the Territory, would be directed through the Strategic Indigenous Housing Infrastructure Program.
With the intervention, a number of initiatives were perceived to be difficult, or hard to swallow, by many Indigenous Territorians, including the BasicsCard, welfare quarantining, the law and order presence coming into communities, which some people saw as tough - not everyone; some people saw it as tough – SIHIP, and the improvement of housing, the long-lasting future of sustainable housing and refurbished housing, was supposed to provide one of the sweeteners, along with economic development and employment opportunities.
These things have not occurred, and housing is a sour taste left in the mouths of both Indigenous and non-Indigenous Territorians because everyone in the Northern Territory understands the importance of fixing houses in the bush so people do not have to uproot their families and rely on town services. We know towns are in a housing crisis, and we are placing further pressure on that.
In relation to that word ‘fraud’, I do not want government getting too sensitive about this. It can mean a number of different things, including not setting up the appropriate management systems when you tell us you have everything under control. The management systems are not working. The Auditor-General’s report identifies, by not setting up those management systems properly, there have been problems within the program. We believed you had these things working. That is defrauding us; we thought things were working and they are not.
Also, telling Territorians $200 000 will be spent on every rebuild, and the contractors saying: ‘You are only going to get $70 000 spent on a rebuild’. That happened this week! The minister said: ‘We are spending $200 000 rebuilding a house’. You are only spending $70 000. The contractors are saying there is only $70 000 to spend. It is happening right now. That is defrauding Territorians.
You said you build houses and conduct refurbishments to standards in line with the Building Code of Australia; however, you are not meeting those standards at all. That is a fraud. You cannot tell us you are doing one thing then not do it; that is fraud. It is fraud when you say you are meeting the standards when you are not.
A perfect example of that are the refurbishments at Ali Curung. I have raised this before. Overflow from the solar hot water systems is running off the roof - pouring off. We ask why that is. The government told us these would be done to standards. Australian Standard 3500, the Building Code of Australia, determines an overflow from a hot water system must be directed away from any potential damage to people or property. You do not have a hose or pipe to take the running water away from the overflow so it keeps running down the roof, over the edges because there are no gutters, leaving calcified deposits on the roof, rusting roofs, and puddles of water for the kids to walk through into the house. That is not helping anyone.
We ask: how can this be? Surely, there must be an independent certifier to certify these houses have been done to standard? When the houses were scoped, in nearly every case they did not send in professionals. They sent in bureaucrats to assess what needed to happen and then their builders did the work. They recognise there is not enough money because the government skimmed off the top for contractors, bureaucrats and other services. The builders cannot do the work properly, and when you are ready to get a certifier in you discover the certification process is done by the alliance contractors themselves. They do not have an external certifier to ensure the work is done to standard.
That is why it is fraud. That is why this program is a fraud. This is the biggest injection of money into the Territory to fix one of the biggest social needs and it goes through a fiscal equalisation process. It was money, albeit downgraded once Labor came into power in 2007, however, it was money to fix a real need. That has not happened; that is not the case. Money has gone out the door.
When we talk about money being on the ground, we know what is said by government is not true. Alyssa Betts had an article in the paper recently about Laramba: $75 000 for repairs and maintenance, or ‘fix and make safe’. At Laramba they have been told they have $24 000 per house to do the work. What happened to the other $51 000?
We heard today in Question Time about administrative wastage under the BER. We know those buildings are welcomed in schools by parents, students, P and Cs, by principals. It is not about the buildings. It is about the debt created and the mismanagement; the lack of value for money and the waste in the BER …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, your time has expired.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I contribute to debate on the Auditor-General’s report, which I have read, and I have spoken to various people about. It is a desktop audit; an audit based on figures and numbers on papers. He has not gone to Santa Teresa or Laramba or Ali Curung or anywhere to see there is not $75 000 per house spent on refurbishments in these communities.
If you go to Ali Curung and Santa Teresa you will see $75 000 is not being spent. There are no floors on the verandahs as you come out of the bathroom. You have had a shower and walk through dirt to get back inside the house. It is very basic. It is spray-painted inside, with shelving in the kitchen and no cupboards for families to put food away; there are no cupboards for clothes to be put away, no cupboard for children’s clean clothing to be put away.
I have a letter written by a young girl called Narelle Palmer. I would like to put it on the Parliamentary Record. She lives at Santa Teresa, House 239, Loop Road, Old Village, Santa Teresa. The letter reads:
This is the real reason we are in parliament. This is a 19-year-old mother of three, writing to every member of this parliament in desperate need to have things we all have for our families.
The minister is saying $75 000 is being spent on every house. It is obvious you have not been to Santa Teresa. Instead of Santa Teresa people getting Abbott and Gillard to live in their house, they ought to ask you to live inside the house you have spent $13 000, $15 000 or $20 000 renovating over summer, with no air-conditioning and no tiles, nowhere to put your food, nowhere to put kids clothing, nowhere to cook, and nowhere for your children to sit at the table with you as parents. Maybe you need to trade with young Narelle Palmer.
I would like to read another letter this young lady has written.
She has references from people who have educated her. One of the referees is a lady called Helen Parer. She has known Narelle for over 12 years, and knows she is a fantastic young Territorian who will contribute to the future. Narelle wants to do something with her children’s lives. Narelle cannot continue to live in a two-bedroom house.
Lena Cavenagh, the oldest resident at Santa Teresa, has just moved into the house the member for Braitling was referring to, the house the CTC visited. How can we have anyone moving in and expected to pay rent for a house that you have said on public record, for over a year, is in the most open and accountable system. The renovations in the house Lena Cavenagh has moved into are not $75 000 worth; not $25 000. They have used a steam blaster for the bathroom, painted the floor without tiling it, put in the kitchen; nothing else. They did not even paint the outside of the house, only the inside. There was asbestos on the roof, and we know as long as people do not touch it asbestos is safe. It was patched in that corner. I have a photograph of the house before the renovations were done. There was a hole in the left-hand corner as you walk into the house which has been repaired. Over time that will start to crack or fall to bits. Mrs Cavenagh might not live long enough to be contaminated by the asbestos; however, her grandchildren certainly will. They will live in that house and be expected to pay the same amount of rent for a house that has not been renovated properly.
Madam Speaker, I seek leave, on behalf of Narelle Palmer, to table photographs of her and her children so parliament can see who Narelle Palmer is.
Leave granted.
Ms ANDERSON: She is a 23-year-old woman desperate to house her children in something she can call a home; a little more than two bedrooms with three children and other siblings she looks after.
In the other letter you will see this family has moved from place to place; from the Top End to Central Australia because they have no parents. She has been the parent for her siblings and has taken her sisters through the antisocial behaviour problem, getting them to have a good quality education at St John’s so they can be better citizens of the Territory rather than going through the revolving door of the justice system we quite often discuss in this House. We need to change these circumstances.
The Auditor-General spoke of many things; it was a desktop audit done on figures given to him. I would like to have seen the Auditor-General go to places such as Ali Curung, Santa Teresa, and Laramba to see for himself if the houses are being refurbished for $75 000. I asked the question of the minister in estimates: how many people do we have fly-in and fly-out? The answer was 65 or 67. Is the program picking up the day-to-day cost of the fly-in/fly-out because when it rained in Central Australia these people were flown back to Queensland? This money is going out of the Territory economy. Is SIHIP here to boost the Queensland economy or the Territory economy? Is it here to give jobs to Territory contractors, our plumbers, our electricians, our builders - people who work in industry?
I read with great interest - I was out bush when it happened – that you were talking about Indigenous training. Whatever happened to Ingkerreke and all those guys who worked on the town camps in Alice Springs? They were put off with no notification. Is there real sustainable training? Are we really serious about giving Indigenous organisations such as Ingkerreke the capacity to be part of this process, part of training the future generation of Indigenous Central Australians to hold real jobs? Are we serious about that? Are we serious about spending $75 000 on these houses, or is it something we talk about in this House and feed to the media - we are spending $75 000 per house. I welcome anyone to the three communities I have named, Santa Teresa, Laramba and Ali Curung, and you will see $75 000 per house has not been spent.
Madam Speaker, I encourage the Auditor-General to visit these communities and have the pleasure of talking to people such as Narelle and see where she lives. These photographs are a great demonstration of the cracks in the walls she speaks about in her letter. There are many houses like that. The member for Braitling and I went to Ali Curung together and he is right - air-conditioners are still leaking on the windows. They have been taken out, and people have been asked to get the shire to put them back in at cost to the owner of the house. I do not think that is good enough.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I speak on one specific issue already touched upon briefly in this House in relation to the Auditor-General’s report into SIHIP. When the member for Braitling touched on the matter, it was a microsecond before the Treasurer of the Northern Territory leapt to the defence of the alliances based on the comments made by the member for Braitling. It is important this issue be properly explored for the sake of the people of the Northern Territory and not some blithe cover-all ‘she’ll be right, mate’ approach taken by government.
This deals with the matter of overpayments to the alliances in relation to invoices they had submitted to the joint committee; the committee overseeing SIHIP as a program of the federal and Northern Territory governments.
One of my great concerns, as the former member for Macdonnell and long-time Territorian, has been the tendency, through whatever process of delivering services or infrastructure into the bush, for contractors to take advantage of the anonymity provided by the tyranny of distance in the Northern Territory when it comes to scrutiny of the work they do. That is not to say it was common practice this advantage was taken by contractors. I do not, for one second, suggest that advantage is being taken now, nor does the Auditor-General. However, I am concerned because circumstances have occurred in the past where contractors spending what was originally public money have taken advantage of the anonymity of remote work.
The matter of overpayments referred to by the Auditor-General in his report on SIHIP notes the money has been recovered. I am led to understand the money recovered is not an insubstantial amount; well into six figures. Members also need to understand the Auditor-General’s world is not a globe; it is a flat earth in some respects. The reason his world is a flat earth is the parameters of his domain are limited by the parameters of the legislative instrument which empowers him to do his job. Namely, he can look at the expenditure and accounting systems of Northern Territory government departments; he cannot look beyond those borders. The rest of the world is an opaque place to the Auditor-General, and that includes the expenditure of public monies when granted to a third party contractor.
In the SIHIP system, and the alliances the Northern Territory government created, the process followed is as they roll out work from time to time, they will invoice the committee which will then pay those invoices. What prevents the alliances from padding out the invoices they present? What was proposed with the alliance model was a third party auditor, who is not the Auditor-General, be allowed to oversee the auditing role of those alliances. That third party, as I understand it, was KPMG. It was as a result of one of KPMG’s audits the joint committee determined it was necessary to review the invoices it had received. It was as a result of that review the committee determined to claw back many hundreds and thousands of dollars. Where the Auditor-General is silent, and where KPMG is presumably silent, is the motive behind padding out the invoices presented which caused the overpayment of hundreds and thousands of dollars. This comes down to three possibilities.
Possibility one: it was a mere oversight on the part of the alliances when they were putting in their invoices and, as such, was a reasonable and honest mistake. Neither the Auditor-General nor KPMG passed any comment on that possibility.
The second possibility is when it comes to invoicing in these types of contractual arrangements, there is always a grey area as to what can be invoiced and what cannot. The person in the accounts department sees an item: ‘Does that fall within the definition of what can be invoiced? I am not sure. What the hell, I will throw it in there anyhow’. Both KMPG and the Auditor-General remain silent on whether or not this occurred.
The third option is there is an intentional use of the system to pad out invoices to claim more than is contractually available to the alliances. I note KPMG and the Auditor-General remain silent on this issue.
There is no allocation by the Auditor-General of motive for the over statement of these invoices. When the department determined these were actually overpayments they were quickly recovered, and it appears there was no contest on the part of the alliances.
This raises a question which the Treasurer, the Chief Minister, no member of this parliament, or the Auditor-General is in a position to answer. That is: what was the motivation behind the excessive invoicing of public monies as administered by SIHIP? That is a very important question.
It would be impossible for me to render any allegation of impropriety on the part of the alliances based on the information we have to hand. Similarly, it is impossible for the Treasurer to declare innocence on the part of any parties based on the information we have. As a House, we simply do not know. Why? Because the Auditor-General has been unable to inform us.
One of our fundamental roles as legislators is also the overseers of the public purse. We have committees dedicated to that role. The Public Accounts Committee, of which I am a member, is one. Consequently, I believe it is important an investigation be launched and, frankly, I am surprised the minister has not launched an investigation as to the circumstances which led to excessive invoices being lodged against the funds allocated to this program.
I expect, knowing some of the participants in these alliances as I do, there will be no evidence of any act which could be considered to be untoward, criminal or villainous in any way. However, it is not for us to simply say: ‘Oh, we know these people; they would not do something like that’. This community is full of examples of righteous and upstanding people having been exposed carrying a darker side. Whilst I do not make that allegation in relation to anyone involved in these alliances, the minister and this House must satisfy themselves nothing of that nature has occurred. It is our duty to do so.
Taxpayers rely upon us, as a House of review, to do that. I call upon the minister with responsibility for this area, to look at what has occurred. With this grey area hanging over the alliances, I imagine they would be delighted with an opportunity to have this grey area removed and their integrity restored. Until this question is answered, and answered publicly, it will remain. If I was one of the alliances, I would be seeking to demonstrate nothing untoward had happened and the overpayment was an oversight. I have always believed in our system; the innocent have nothing to fear from scrutiny.
Madam Speaker, in the absence of knowing any better, I argue in the strongest possible terms that that review be conducted publicly; so the public can be satisfied the overpayments made to the alliances were a clerical issue rather than something more sinister.
Mr McCARTHY (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I add my comments to the debate on the roll-out of the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program. Much has been said about SIHIP in the Territory. There is no doubt its roll-out has not been without difficulty, particularly around the introduction of the alliance contracting model required by the federal government. SIHIP is needed. Let us not forget this is a record injection of funds into Indigenous housing; a record level of commitment to closing the gap for Indigenous health and housing outcomes. Sadly, the standard of housing for Indigenous Territorians was neglected for decades.
When I reflect on Indigenous housing in the Northern Territory, I remember my first real contact with the challenge. It related to the famous gold rush festival of Tennant Creek. As a school teacher running a transitional unit for Indigenous primary kids, most of whom were transitioning into their first school, I was excited to develop a project where we organised a float and joined the procession to open the Gold Rush Festival. I definitely excited the imagination of my adoptive mother from Walmanpa country, Bunny Nabarula, who took great delight in mustering the enthusiasm of not only the kids, also the parents, with the potential of having the traditional owners on the back of an old truck in a major procession down the main street of Tennant Creek.
The first job was to collect artefacts to decorate the flat top of the old Warumungu Housing Association truck. We decided to ask our family members to donate artefacts. In those days, Tennant Creek was made up of a number of fringe camps, with no housing infrastructure, and this is where my students came from. We skirted through the camp closest to the town known as Kargaru camp. I can remember Bunny Nabarula negotiating furiously with an old man about the use of some excellent artefacts adorning his camp. As the children scurried through the scrub and collected some very good spears and took off, I turned to see pieces of corrugated iron collapsing around this old gentleman; I was embarrassed and a little shocked.
That was my first recollection of Indigenous housing. I realised this was the old man’s house and the spears were supporting his dwelling. We used those spears, we returned those spears, and the procession went ahead and it was an absolutely fabulous day. I remember running the length of Paterson Street excitedly as a young school teacher, as the kids and the parents were proud to take what would have been the first Warumungu float in the gold rush festival down the main street of Tennant Creek.
I started to take an interest in Indigenous housing and Indigenous issues. The government of the day had the challenge of delivering Indigenous housing. I was a witness to the first stage of the development of Indigenous housing; the tin houses. The tin houses were an attempt by government to deliver housing for Indigenous Territorians and the tin houses - some remain today in Tennant Creek, most not inhabited - stand as a marker in time of a government initiative for housing. I would need to research the Parliamentary Record to find the level of debate which took place in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly around the delivery of an Indigenous housing program.
From that time, I commenced an extensive period in remote areas and lived in cattle station communities where there was no Indigenous housing. The first housing wave was tin houses, and at the Barkly cattle station, some merely garden sheds. I thought this was going to be a very difficult job; a massive job. My first question was whether the government of the day had the goodwill to continue delivering Indigenous housing, to close the gap on Indigenous disadvantage. I saw the tin houses as a very meagre attempt to do that.
There has been much development in housing initiatives, and I have been walking side by side with those in remote, regional, and urban areas. I am proud of the fact my home town of Tennant Creek led the way in the latest major Indigenous housing initiative.
In October 2008, the then Housing minister, Hon Rob Knight, announced an agreement had been reached for the NT government to sublease eight community living areas from the Julalikari Council Aboriginal Corporation for 60 years. It was the first agreement of its kind to be reached in the Territory, and flagged the start of work in Tennant Creek. From very much a passive position of advising, talking and lobbying with organisations and people, I have witnessed an Indigenous housing initiative never before seen in the Northern Territory premised on proper consultation and partnership with the very people it serves to close the gap on disadvantage.
This has not been recognised in the rhetoric in this House and the sustained attacks from the opposition looking for the potential to embarrass and ridicule the government and create negative media. When I return home, and when I travel in the regions - and we are first to admit it is not without problems - we focus on the positives. This is very much a new era in how to address Indigenous disadvantage with health and education.
The Julalikari Aboriginal Corporation made it clear their plan was to refurbish houses in the community living areas of Tennant Creek. Of those 78 houses to be rebuilt, 34 have been completed.
There is also a good story around the civil construction, once again, a program where government, at federal and Territory levels, has entered into consultation with the Indigenous people it most directly affects, and worked on the different facets of the project, one being civil construction. The system under SIHIP is to deliver ongoing governance. Not only have we had extensive consultation and partnerships, we have had intensive training to employment programs, the development of real governance about how to sustain Indigenous housing which has been grown in the Territory in an era very much different from the old man who donated his spears, to the tin houses, to the now new community living areas taking shape in Tennant Creek, with models of governance which will deliver a mainstream outcome to Indigenous housing and take Indigenous people forward with it.
I am very proud of the training opportunities SIHIP offered young Indigenous people. Twenty-seven Indigenous staff were employed on the Tennant Creek package of works. This equates to about 42% of the workforce. Having worked with Indigenous youth with work ready programs and training to employment programs, it must be recognised, when you take on people who are unskilled in areas of construction and infrastructure and offer them opportunities to learn, it involves intensive instruction which adds to costs and blows out time frames. However, what is the cost of developing skills, sustainability and future opportunities?
There has been little discussion about that from members opposite who are quick to jump to a bureaucratic argument. I am not saying the accounting and other issues are not important; however, it would be good to focus on visiting communities such as the member for Macdonnell mentioned, and look at the training, employment, and engagement of the people this program serves to close the gap on disadvantage.
In Tennant Creek, I know many workers who have taken on the challenge. There have been successes, challenges, and failures. The main thing is we keep moving this forward. We cannot go back now, and SIHIP will march forward and take the Indigenous community it serves with it. As government, we need to recognise and support that. That is a responsibility for all members in this House.
I can give an example. The communities in my electorate flagged to benefit over the next few years from SIHIP include Alpurrurulam, Borroloola, Canteen Creek, Jilkminggan, Minyerri, Robinson River, Wutunugurra, and Epenarra. When I visit these communities I say to people we need to talk about housing and the opportunities this will present, and to search out the young people who can be involved in this and will learn the skills to sustain housing initiatives into the future. It goes back to being a school teacher; connecting with the community as an MLA; deconstructing one of the biggest and most progressive Indigenous housing initiatives seen in this country.
The Northern Territory is leading the way and being watched closely by Western Australia and Queensland, not only in the delivery of infrastructure and construction, but the negotiation, the liaison, the cross-cultural communication initiatives which have been put in place by this government to get this program up and running.
This is a mega-role for me; it is an exciting role, and I continue to do it. However, I compare with some members opposite. The member for Braitling and the broken septic tank in his electorate - and I encourage all members, if you discover failing infrastructure you can take a hands-on approach and encourage people to solve the problem. Several pieces of corrugated iron and a few rocks might have been a good temporary measure while you were instructing, guiding or mentoring that family on how the shire services work, how those repairs and maintenance schedules take shape, and the necessary communication with the local shire to enact that repair schedule for their problem.
Likewise, if you come across a family which has had a privately purchased air-conditioner removed from the window and a security screen fitted, because the decision of the community was to fit security screens under a government intervention program to address housing infrastructure, take those people and start the mentoring process on how they can refit the air-conditioner. You can take it straight to the press, write letters to the Tennant Creek and District Times, bring it into this House, and make a big song and dance about how the government has failed that family.
I will give credit where credit is due; I will take responsibility where responsibility needs to be taken. However, I much prefer the method of liaising, mentoring and communicating with people about how to solve problems, as opposed to trying to create headlines and inaccurate information which does not tell the full story.
As the minister acknowledged, SIHIP is no silver bullet or panacea for decades of neglect of Indigenous housing and chronic overcrowding. It is a huge leap forward in a commitment from the Territory and federal governments to improve housing for Indigenous Territorians now and into the future.
I am sad to say the old man who loaned us his spears is no longer around, nor is the truck driver who drove the old Warumungu Housing Association truck, the only real piece of transport infrastructure the association had. Were they around today, I am sure they would celebrate the government’s work in this important area. They would be able to communicate far more eloquently the messages we need to send to the Indigenous community about SIHIP, Indigenous housing, closing the gap and closing Indigenous disadvantage. That level of traditional knowledge, law, culture and structure has been slipping away. It is our responsibility to ensure young generations take up the wise words and role models of their traditional owners, leaders, countrymen and ancestors. That equates to working together to deliver good models of governance around Indigenous housing, Territory Housing, and the sustainability factor. We are well and truly on that track.
I have been privileged to visit areas outside my electorate. I visited a SIHIP house project at Umbakumba, deserted the official party and caught up with a couple of local Indigenous guys working in a laundry. I took delight in talking to them and communicating the need and importance of moving forward, not taking backward steps, or listening to the negativity, but building on the positives and creating a new environment to close the gap on Indigenous disadvantage.
Madam Speaker, when I visited the Arafura electorate and wonderful Maningrida, a legendary place I had never been to, I witnessed a subdivision to develop new houses. I was able to talk about not creating subdivisions, or infrastructure, creating communities. That needs to be recognised in both the federal and Territory Labor governments’ initiatives in Indigenous housing known as SIHIP.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I thank all members for their contribution to this very important debate on the Auditor-General’s report. Members have endeavoured to be constructive and identify past and ongoing challenges for SIHIP. Each member has contributed well to this debate, and I have listened carefully to the offerings of members.
The member for Nelson had a very balanced appraisal of SIHIP, made some good observations and suggestions, and is across much of the detail of SIHIP in its history and challenges. I will go through the issues raised by the member for Nelson. He said it was hard to ascertain specific costs that were part and parcel of the alliance model; however, he saw that as a problem. He would like to see, as work progressed and each house was completed, a value for each house rather than an average value, or a range of values for refurbishments.
My advice is the Chief Executive of FaHCSIA, Dr Jeff Harmer, has given a commitment to provide this level of information at the end of each package. The reason given is the package’s direct costs, materials, labour, logistics, GST, fees, etcetera, cannot be known immediately. Nonetheless, the program level indirect cost is attributed to the package at the end. These two cross-categories make up the total amount spent on each element of the works and, to some degree, is like amortising an investment. You might buy a machine which makes widgets. You pay $100 000 for that machine and start producing widgets. It is not right to say the first widget produced is worth $100 000 or $10 000. You have to look at the life of the machine, the associated costs, your overheads, and all the rest: So it is with these indirect costs. Rightly so, Dr Harmer has given an undertaking he will place on the public record those costs at the end of each package. That is appropriate otherwise distortions may arise and is a good undertaking to give.
The member for Nelson raised the issue of overpayments, as did the members for Port Darwin and Braitling. That is an important issue which I will address when I turn to their offerings.
The member for Nelson asked the latest on Earth Connect. He asked, and I quote: ‘Why aren’t they happy?’ They are not happy because they have been transitioned out of the program, member for Nelson …
Mr Elferink: Why were they transitioned out?
Dr BURNS: I can tell the House negotiations are occurring with Earth Connect. No fee will be paid to them to exit the program. Present negotiations cover the value of the works completed, or partially completed, and the value of materials. One can understand Earth Connect is not pleased with being transitioned out of the program …
Mr Elferink: You fired them.
Dr BURNS: They were transitioned out of the program, member for Port Darwin.
Mr Elferink: The question is why were they fired?
Dr BURNS: That was part of the contractual agreement; people could be transitioned out of the program.
Mr Elferink: Why were they fired?
Dr BURNS: The Auditor-General’s report makes it plain why. There were questions about materials, workmanship, and the ability to meet deadlines. I turn to what he said:
Mr Elferink: And the rest, keep going. Read the whole thing if you are going to read it.
Dr BURNS: I am not going to read the whole report. In his overview he said:
Dr BURNS: It was regarding the quality and capacity of Earth Connect. At Groote Eylandt recently I saw the infamous laminated beams already cracking despite the treatment they had received. I also saw the inadequate site preparation, and some of the footings which had been constructed. As the member for Nelson pointed out, it is a bit of hyperbole for people to say houses were being demolished when they were footings and steel brackets coming out of the ground. Some of the dwellings have not reached any significant stage, and those that have will be turned over to the Anindilyakwa Land Council as a training ground to enable local Indigenous people to finish construction and use them for various purposes ...
Mr Elferink: If they are substandard why are you negotiating …
Dr BURNS: That is the story. We are still negotiating with Earth Connect about a settlement.
The member for Nelson mentioned better outcomes. He was focused on that and exhorted both governments to ensure, through this program of SIHIP, we attain better outcomes.
The role of KPMG was an issue the member for Nelson raised. KMPG does a compliant audit of the alliances accounting system and a substantive audit of individual transactions.
One very important point raised by the member for Nelson was there is no CPI or escalation built into SIHIP, and he is quite right. This will provide a challenge, and he is right to identify it as a substantial risk to the program coming in on budget. It was a decision not to allow escalation. The alliances will adapt their products and deliver methods to continually improve the value for money of the program. The challenge is to perform above the minimum condition of satisfaction and achieve delivery costs which will counter any cost escalation. In the brief I have - and I will read it for you, member for Nelson, it says:
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! The member said he is reading from a brief. Under standing orders, I seek he table that brief. They are not personal notes.
Dr BURNS: I have annotations on them, member for Port Darwin, so …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! The member said he was quoting from a brief, not personal notes. He is obliged, under standing orders, to table such a brief. I seek he be instructed to do so.
Dr BURNS: Everything I am saying from this brief is going on the Parliamentary Record, member for Port Darwin. Please let me get on with it; I am not going to table it - full stop.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! I seek he tables it in accordance with standing orders. If you seek advice from the Clerk …
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, I will seek advice from the Clerk.
Member for Port Darwin, the minister said he has made comments in writing on the brief. He is right in saying he does not have to, and will not be, tabling the document he is talking from.
Mr Elferink: Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker - a secretive and furtive government in action.
Dr BURNS: I am addressing real issues raised by the member for Nelson. I thank him for his contribution; it has been very constructive. One of the issues raised was the cap on the infrastructure budget. The advice I have is the alliance has been requested to design infrastructure to 2030, so any construction now will not need upsizing for programs after SIHIP. However, the scope of construction is only enough to deliver the SIHIP targets. In other words, the design of the infrastructure will cope until 2030. However, the infrastructure constructed has been tailored to meet the exact targets of SIHIP.
Subdivision will be constructed in stages - first SIHIP, and then subsequent capital works programs as funds become available. The design is there for the future; our focus is delivery of SIHIP, and the infrastructure being sufficient to support SIHIP. This allows community members to be involved in the planning of their subdivisions well into the future.
I have already spoken about Earth Connect. You spoke about other methods of delivery of the refurbishments. I am in agreement with you, member for Nelson. We have already commenced alternate methods of delivery on Groote Eylandt and Wadeye, particularly at Groote Eylandt, where the land council will be involved in the refurbishments. We are looking for local organisations with the capacity and ability to carry out these refurbishments. I will be looking more and more for that model.
What you said about some of the national safety requirements of the Commonwealth, particularly for smaller jobs, has been pointed out to be a point of escalation of costs and unnecessary. I do not want to see safety compromised on a work site. We need to be realistic. There are certain grades where the Commonwealth requirements kick in, and we could look at alternate methods of delivering those programs. I agree with you, member for Nelson, we have to look, particularly with refurbishments, at alternate ways of delivery and achieving value for money. I thank you for that suggestion.
You pointed to the status of houses in communities under a five-year lease. That is a real issue; there is no doubt about that. Both governments are exploring solutions to the expiration of the five-year leases, and voluntary leases will be pursued. It is my belief and desire we can negotiate extensions to those leases when people see the benefits of having housing and housing activity on communities. You are correct; a five-year lease is something we are moving on and we need to work with Aboriginal communities, landowners and land councils to resolve those issues.
I hope that answers most of your questions, member for Nelson. I thank you for your contribution.
The member for Braitling made constructive comments on the program. I have recognised his efforts on a number of occasions, both in this House and publicly. He is inspecting SIHIP, speaking to people on the ground; I appreciate that. He is doing his job, and that is what an opposition member should be doing. He is covering a large amount of territory.
He was concerned about fraud and overpayment – both he and the member for Port Darwin raised this. Nowhere in the Auditor-General’s report does he raise a spectre of fraud. He raises the issue of overpayment …
Mr Elferink: He remains silent on it, and that is the issue. He cannot go there.
Dr BURNS: You can remain silent on a number of things, member for Port Darwin, which does not necessarily mean anything. You choose to construct a story around what you feel he did not say. He is the Auditor-General. If he had any suspicion whatsoever of fraud he would have raised it. It is a bad reflection on the Auditor-General for you to say he has not raised it. That is his job. If there was a sniff of fraud the Auditor-General would be raising it.
Mr Elferink: No, that is the point - he cannot.
Dr BURNS: We will have to agree to disagree on this, member for Port Darwin.
He mentioned seven issues relating to overpayment, and I will truncate them: an absence of formal policies or guidelines; failure to ensure documentation in support of invoices and payroll rates were provided in a timely manner; incorrect calculation of payroll due to incorrect inclusion of oncosts; incorrect calculation of expenditure and the absence of adequate supporting documentation; the lack of proper approval for expenditure incurred; work on the Tennant Creek package being undertaken prior to the finalisation of the agreement; and a lack of supporting documents to enable an audit to be completed while some invoices submitted as part of a claim differed from invoices held on the alliance partners’ files. In conclusion he said:
Mr Elferink: What does that tell you? Does that not send an alarm bell ringing in your head?
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: As I said to the member for Braitling …
Mr Elferink: Does that not concern you?
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin, people listened to you in silence. Please allow the minister to finish his comments.
Dr BURNS: The member for Braitling has placed a matter before the Australian Federal Police. He is not saying there has been fraud; he is saying there is a possibility, which is why he referred the matter to the AFP. During the last sittings I said to him: ‘Put it in the hands of the AFP’. He has reported his reply from the AFP, and we will see how things progress. That is where I will leave the matter of fraud.
The member for Braitling raised issues in relation to the memorandum of understanding signed in September 2007. My recollection, member for Braitling, is the federal election - you would know as you were a candidate; we will not go there today - was November 2007. The signing of the MOU occurred while Mal Brough was Minister for Indigenous Affairs ...
Mr Giles: You have to read the words of the MOU.
Dr BURNS: I am going to read the words of the MOU, member for Braitling.
Mr HAMPTON: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! I move an extension of time to enable the minister to complete his comments pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Dr BURNS: I thank my colleagues for their graciousness. Reading Paragraph 8 of the MOU signed in September 2007, it says:
There are no ifs, buts and maybes about that, member for Braitling. It says: ‘will be used’. The old gun to the head - he was still in the seat in September 2007, and MOUs do not pop out of the air. Mal Brough had the gun-to-the-head approach on the issue of alliance contracting. He was minister; his views are reflected in this MOU. That is the sort of bloke he was: ‘Sign up to what I want. I will have it my way or the highway’. Mal Brough - huff and puff Brough. We had to sign, that is all there is about it. It was his method of alliance contracting.
Member for Braitling, you have brought out some comments by my colleagues. We have endeavoured to make, and still endeavour to make, the alliance contracting method work. That is the context of my colleagues’ comments. I have laid it on the line. You tried to assert we had a choice; the MOU, under the dictatorship of Mal Brough, was it ‘will be used’. This MOU was signed during Mal Brough’s time as minister ...
Members interjecting.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: You have asked questions; you say $200m is missing. There is no missing $200m. The advice I have, member for Braitling, is the original MOU is for $793m, which is the one Mal Brough signed. The SIHIP component of that is: Commonwealth $527m, the Northern Territory government $100m, and there was a further top-up by the Commonwealth of $45m, bringing it to $672m.
The other element of the $793m was $279.2m in existing commitments. That is the composition of the MOU - $793m, and $672m of SIHIP. There is no missing $200m, just as there is no overspend with the BER. If you want a brief, I am more than happy to have the department brief you on what you think is the missing $200m. It has been adequately explained to me, member for Braitling, and I hope I have addressed your issue.
The member for Macdonnell raised a number of issues, at a personal and human level, about Narelle Palmer who lives at Santa Teresa. I am advised her unit is scheduled for refurbishment, and temporary accommodation options will be discussed with her while that is occurring. I would like to say there are more houses at Santa Teresa for Narelle; I take on board what the member for Macdonnell said about her difficulties and desires for her children. Unfortunately, there are no vacant houses at Santa Teresa at this time.
The member for Port Darwin used his time to talk about overpayments; I believe I have addressed that.
As ever, the effervescent member for Barkly told us several yarns from past experience; God bless him for that. I am always grateful for the enthusiasm of the member for Barkly. I know he has enjoyed getting across the length and breadth of the Territory. It is great he has been to Maningrida and has seen the subdivision occurring on the other side of the airport. This will be greatly appreciated by Indigenous people in Maningrida. It has grown leaps and bounds over the 30-odd years I have dealt with it and there is more work to do.
I thank all members for their contribution to the debate; I have tried to address issues raised. I commend the Auditor-General for the thoroughness of his report. I am certain there will be further debates on SIHIP. The Commonwealth Auditor-General is compiling a report into SIHIP and, no doubt, there will be more for us to examine, to learn from, and to implement on the basis of his recommendations.
It is a journey; a massive project with substantial issues from the start; I am not denying that. As minister with charge of it, I am endeavouring to get the best outcomes for Indigenous Territorians across the Northern Territory.
The need is great. I do not believe we will ever fulfil those needs in five or 10 years - we need to be committed to Indigenous housing for the next 20 or 30 years. It does not matter who is in power in the Northern Territory or Canberra - all sides of politics need to make a substantial commitment. By the same token, there are responsibilities on the Indigenous side, on the tenants’ side; people need to be educated, advised on tenancies, on sustaining tenancies, and their responsibilities as tenants. It is not going to happen overnight. The media has asked: ‘What are you going to do if there are still 10 or 12 people in a house?’ Arrears in housing are so large the situation is not going to turn around overnight. Even with 750 new houses across the Territory it is not going to substantially change. We need to manage the situation, to educate people and have a long-term approach to providing infrastructure.
Moreover, it is not just about the infrastructure of housing; it is about economic and social development for Indigenous people across the length and breadth of the Northern Territory. Housing, to some degree, is symptomatic. Arrears in education are also symptomatic; lack of employment is symptomatic. It is about engaging with Indigenous people and, Lord knows, they have had many changes in the last few years - the intervention, shires, SIHIP; people are reeling from the changes. As members of parliament we need to support and engage with people using all the contacts we have through this period of profound change.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend the Auditor-General’s report to the House. I ask the House to note the report.
Motion agreed to; report noted.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I table the Annual Report of the Council of Territory Cooperation for the period 14 October 2009 to 30 June 2010.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report and that I have leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
Mr HAMPTON (Information, Communications and Technology Policy): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, today I give the Assembly an update on the National Broadband Network, or NBN. It is important for all members of this Assembly, and all Territorians, to understand what the NBN is, what it does, and how it will benefit the Territory. It is important for Territorians to understand, on 21 August, a real choice faces them between moving forward to an information and communications system fit for the 21st century, or one which sends us back to the 20th century – a choice between a Labor government which delivers a social environment and economic transformation for the nation, and the Liberal opposition that delivers a return to the failed era of bandaid broadband policies which left Australia lagging behind countries like Korea, Japan, Singapore and much of Europe. When Prime Minister Gillard talks about going forward or going back, the NBN is a perfect example of the choice facing Territorians on election day.
The Australian Labor Party has established NBN Co Limited to build and operate the NBN. The NBN is the biggest nation building project in Australia’s history. The NBN will be Australia’s first national wholesale only, open access, high-speed broadband platform. The NBN will deliver affordable high-speed broadband services to all Australians, no matter where they live or work. In the Territory, the NBN will deliver optical fibre to the homes and businesses of Territorians in Darwin and Palmerston, Nhulunbuy, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs, with speeds 1000 times faster than most people experience today. That is right: 1000 times faster.
The federal Labor Party today welcomed the announcement from NBN Co, CEO Mike Quigley, the network will be capable of offering turbocharge speeds of up to 1 GB per second, which is 1000 times faster than many people receive today. The NBN will also deliver Next Generation wireless services to 4% of Territorians, and satellite services to 100% of the Territory, with average data rates more than 20 times higher than most users of these technologies experience today.
The NBN means fast broadband access across the Northern Territory, however it not just the speed of the NBN that makes it so valuable; it is also the universal access and connection. Everyone, everywhere, receives it, which opens up a whole new world, economically, socially and environmentally for Australians and the Territory in particular.
In combination with the speed of the NBN, this is a transformative benefit for the nation because it allows a new level of applications, goods and services to be developed and delivered.
I said the best thing about NBN is everyone gets it; that is not strictly true. I apologise, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, and seek to correct that statement. Everyone gets the NBN, everyone except the opposition. The transition of the Australian and Territory economies to the digital age is something the opposition, both federally and in the Northern Territory, do not get. Building the NBN delivers over 25 000 new jobs nationally every year. In the Territory alone, the NBN and related investment will be more than $1bn over the next eight years. The benefits of the NBN extend far beyond the build phase. The real return starts after the building has finished, as Trevor Clarke points out in his Computerworld article: NBN 101: The Economic Argument. The savings the NBN will deliver justifies the investment.
The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the OECD, looked at what short-term cost savings would be needed in the electricity, healthcare, education and transport sectors to justify an investment in a fibre to the home network such as the NBN. On average, it found a cost saving of between 0.5% and 1.5% in each sector over 10 years resulting from a broadband investment would justify the cost. The US city of Seattle is an example of an economy benefiting from broadband, achieving a potential saving of up to $US1bn per year from its investment in its fibre network due to effects on the electricity and the transport sectors, along with the reduction in carbon emissions.
The NBN does not merely deliver savings. It is an economic super charger. In Australia, income derived over the Internet soared by 52% in the 2008-09 financial year to reach $123bn, which is up $42bn according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. This result correlated with statistics which showed an additional 25 000 businesses received …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am seeking guidance from the minister - I am trying to follow his statement. He made a correction on the record. There is a tradition in this House the minister does not deviate from the statement circulated the night before. I must have misread the statement last night; I do not see a correction. I am wondering if he could direct me to the page where the correction was.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can you be more specific? I do not think the minister was …
Mr ELFERINK: He said he was wrong about something and is correcting it. It is a long-standing tradition. We have had this argument before - statements circulated the night before should not have substantial deviations. I am wondering if I misread the statement.
Ms Lawrie: What standing order?
Mr ELFERINK: I am wondering if I have misread the statement last night …
Ms Lawrie: Do you have a standing order you want to quote?
Mr ELFERINK: Has he changed the record he circulated last night? That is the question.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Minister, has the statement significantly changed from the one circulated?
Mr HAMPTON: No, not that I am aware of. It was a figure of speech I was using which should be in the statement.
Madam SPEAKER: The minister is entitled to deviate slightly from the statement. Please continue.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! It would represent a substantial deviation if he made a correction in the document he is reading now which is not in his statement circulated last night. I am wondering if he could direct me to the page.
Mr HAMPTON: It was a figure of speech, Madam Speaker, which should be in the statement.
Mr Elferink: It is a figure of speech?
Madam SPEAKER: It is in the statement. Thank you. Please continue, minister.
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Can we seek clarification as a courtesy to assist us? Can the minister repeat what he said a few minutes ago in relation to correcting something? If we have the wrong end of the stick, so be it. If you could clarify this we would be very grateful, thank you.
Mr Elferink: What page is it on?
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, if you are able to repeat what you said and continue.
Mr HAMPTON: Yes, Madam Speaker. I said: the best thing about the NBN is that everyone gets it, however, that is not strictly true. I apologise and seek to correct that statement. Everyone gets the NBN, except the opposition.
Mr Elferink: That was being cute. Okay. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: There were no corrections. Thank you. Please continue, minister.
Mr HAMPTON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will continue.
That is where the NBN really delivers; 27% of all businesses are now using the Internet to generate business.
As one recent World Bank study of 120 countries found, for every 10 percentage point increases in the penetrations of broadband services there is an increase in economic growth of 1.3 percentage points. Global management consulting firm McKinsey and Company similarly concluded a 10% increase in broadband household penetration produces a rise of up to 1.4% in GDP growth. Access Economics, in an Australian-focused report, found the nett present value of benefits of smart technologies on a fibre-optic network to 2018 would be between $35bn and $80bn.
As a nation, both in return on investment and in savings, the NBN is an economic booster according to the OECD, the World Bank, and numerous other countries which have already done it. It was well worth spending the money. When the nation is doing well, the NT is doing well. However, Mr Abbott does not want the nation to have it and, worse, the CLP does not want the Territory to have the NBN.
Opposition finance spokesman, Andrew Robb, told ABC radio a Coalition in power would see the government’s fibre to the home broadband network halted and either sold off or incorporated into its broadband vision where appropriate. What policy is Mr Abbott and the CLP offering instead? Their policy is thin on detail; Tony Abbott’s broadband policy is to shut down the NBN and replace it with a grab bag of policies which would consign Australia to the digital dark ages, destroy jobs, and risk our economy for decades. In summary, it is cheap and dirty.
It relies on outdated technology, ADSL, wireless and hybrid fibre for the last mile delivery to the premise. Consequently, it would provide a slower speed to the premise. On average, due to the limits of the technology, it cannot provide the speed, coverage and affordable prices offered by the NBN. It guarantees no connections, instead relying on the private sector; a plan which failed for 12 years under the former Coalition government.
Their policy indicates it will only make available high-speed broadband. NBN, by contrast, guarantees connection of 93% of premises to high-speed broadband. The difference is they have no connection guarantee; they guarantee nothing. It includes no optical fibre to the home. Upgrading old copper is just shifting deck chairs on a sinking ship. What do you get in the way of broadband if you are more than 5 km away from a telephone exchange under this policy? The answer is nothing.
Fibre-optic cables future proof capabilities are far superior to the existing technologies proposed by the Coalition policy. This is simply the physical nature of the technologies, and the Coalition already had 18 failed broadband policies when they were in government and this 19th is more of the same - back to the future. The policy is based on the premise competition will drive infrastructure development. However, by definition, it will require duplication of infrastructure by the telecommunication providers to be truly competitive, creating not one monopoly, but a network of regional monopolies.
As Internet Industry Association Chief Executive, Peter Coroneos said, the opposition’s plan fell significantly short of the NBN because the private sector has had time to deliver broadband and have only made the decision to do so where it makes commercial sense. Where it does not make commercial sense – Darwin, Palmerston, Nhulunbuy, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs …
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I draw attention to the state of the House for this very important statement.
Madam SPEAKER: A quorum is required. Ring the bells. A quorum is present.
Mr HAMPTON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Coalition’s 19th policy in 12 years is another failure. It will shut down the NBN and destroy 25 000 jobs the NBN would create in each year of construction. It does not achieve structural reform of the telecommunications sector, and gives no indication how a Coalition government would deal with the existing acknowledged monopoly position of Telstra.
This policy is a return to the failed era of bandaid broadband policies which left Australia lagging behind countries like Korea, Japan, Singapore, and much of Europe. It denies homes and businesses in 1000 towns across Australia including Darwin, Palmerston, Katherine, Nhulunbuy, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs access to fibre technology. Tony Abbott and the Coalition do not understand the technology of the future and cannot be trusted to make the decisions necessary to build a modern Australian economy.
Telecommunications analyst Paul Budde said there is no vision, no leadership with this proposal; it is just a patchwork of old broadband technologies which will only ever be upgraded if the market believes there is a commercial reason for it. The current plan will take us back to 2007, perhaps a little further.
Macquarie Telecom head of regulatory and government affairs, Matt Healy, said in The Australian on 11 August 2010:
What did this retread policy give us the first time around? When Labor was elected in 2007, Australia had broadband 35 times slower than the fastest nation. Australia was left languishing as a broadband backwater in broadband take-up, speeds and prices. This model has given us huge price and access disadvantages in the Northern Territory, even where the fibre is in the ground.
An example of this is a connection costing a business $2000 in Sydney costs $18 000 in Darwin. Going back to this model represents a risk to Australia’s economic future and those communities across the country crying out for better broadband.
NBN Co Limited has already indicated satellite services for rural and remote areas will be made available early in the implementation schedule. The opposition’s announcement for remote areas passes itself off as the same for NBN; wireless and satellite. Wireless is well suited for low-density areas where coverage can be provided cheaply, or for mobility purposes. There will always be a requirement for both wireless and optic technologies. Optic fibre is more suited to high-speed large volume data transfer.
The issue is what mix will deliver the most benefits to the Australian economy. With only $6bn in their entire broadband kitty, it leaves the opposition’s claims it can deliver the same as the NBN to the bush looking bruised to say the best. The Australian Telecommunications User Group, ATUG, which represents the interests of businesses around Australia, said the digital divide will increase if Abbott’s backward-looking policy is ever implemented.
If elected, Tony Abbott will rip out around $1bn of investment in the Northern Territory over the next few years. It is not only the NBN he is ripping out, but the jobs for sparkies, line layers, hardware retailers, and ITC professionals in the Territory the NBN delivers as well. Tony Abbott is going to rip out computers in schools, as we heard today in Question Time. He is going to rip out e-Health initiatives which help Territorians, particularly those in remote communities; rip out trade training the industry desperately needs; and rip out the economic growth which depends on the NBN.
I compare the negativity and ‘cannot do’ attitude of Mr Abbott and CLP with what the Labor Party has achieved in three short years. This includes work on this massive project which is already under way – it is being rolled out as we speak. Under Stage 1 of the priority roll-out in Tasmania the first services have been switched on in the communities of Midway Point, Smithton and Scottsdale. The first building blocks of the NBN on the mainland are also under way. Under the NBN Regional Backbone Blackspots Program, around 6000 km of new competitive fibre-optic backbone links are being rolled out in regional Australia. Over 1200 km of fibre has been laid, and these backbone links will benefit approximately 400 000 people in over 100 000 regional locations. This part of the roll-out will also create around 1000 full-time jobs. Much of this roll-out has been in the Northern Territory.
NBN Co has also announced 19 second release locations, including Casuarina. Construction in Casuarina connecting homes and businesses to the NBN will kick-off in the first half of 2011. NBN Co has signed the heads of agreement with Telstra to use existing Telstra pits and equipment. Labor has separated Telstra from the wholesale of services while retailing those services at the same time, eliminating unfair trade practices from the market.
Labor has relieved Telstra of driving the Universal Service Obligation, allowing Telstra to pursue its commercial targets unfettered by the noose around shareholder value the Liberal government left when it sold off Telstra. Labor has begun the process of securing Next Generation satellite services to deliver broadband to remote and regional Australia, fixing isolation problems the Liberals left.
Now, at two minutes to midnight, two weeks before the federal election, the opposition copies Labor’s solution for the bush; however, they leave off the implementation plan. They cannot say how they are going to do it; how many towers, how many satellites, where the fibre is going to be pulled out. They failed with similar models 18 times. This bits-and-pieces policy the opposition has trotted out is doomed to similar failure. That is why they are so angry. The NBN shines a light too brightly on the Liberal Party’s failure to deliver. They were in government for 12 years, 18 failed policies, no national broadband infrastructure and no viable alternative. The NBN, by contrast, is up and running and being rolled out across the country, opening up access, bringing down prices, and opening up economic opportunity in the digital age.
This is not just the opinion of this government. Leading US technologist and one of the creators of the Internet, Larry Smarr, likened Labor’s plan to the 1956 decision by President Dwight Eisenhower to build a publicly-funded interstate highway system; a nation building project with a value unable to be calculated. He believes the NBN can show the US the right way to do this. What do industry experts say about Mr Abbott’s cheap and nasty alternative? Internet Industry Association Chief Executive, Mr Peter Coroneos, said the opposition’s plan fell significantly short of the NBN. On Mr Abbott’s commitment to scrap the NBN, Primus Telcom, CEO Ravi Bhartia said the opposition was misinformed, and totally misunderstood the NBN situation. ‘Consumers want it, businesses want it and industry wants it as well’, is what he said. ‘They are damaging their own credibility and showing their ignorance’, he also said.
Mr Abbott, in his debt and deficit mantra, says we cannot afford an NBN. This is not true. The Governor of the Reserve Bank, Glenn Stevens, said recently there is no nett public debt in the country, in contrast to much of the developed world. The most recent figure from Canberra was a peak of 5% or 6% of GDP - far from being the highest in history it is closest to the lowest.
In fact, we cannot afford not to build the NBN. Going back to the future with Mr Abbott’s bits-and-pieces policy condemns the nation to the backwaters of the last century. The problem is not affordability of the NBN; it is with Mr Abbott’s $6bn joke of a broadband policy. To ensure comparable capability in the international arena, the proposed solution under the opposition’s policy would require ongoing regular upgrades over the same period. This means the costings the opposition released are entirely unbelievable. Because we make the leap into the digital era, we always need fast, cheap broadband. Mr Abbott’s bits and pieces will not do.
The most fundamental thing Mr Abbott and the CLP do not understand is the NBN is more about surfing the net. As Trevor Clarke noted in Computerworld, the planned or proposed services which will be delivered across the NBN cover such diverse areas as the Internet Protocol Television, or IPTV, to consumers and other entertainment venues; phone services such as a Voice Over IP; healthcare, including palliative care patients who need 24/7 monitoring; education; smart transport systems; smart electricity grids; environmental monitoring such as water usage and irrigation; and scientific research projects.
Some of these may use mobile broadband connections and wireless technologies; however, most require extensive and universal fibre network to make them possible. It is a choice of going forward or going back. From the opposition’s attempt to make fun about this, judging by their support of Mr Abbott and his broadband policy, it is clear they do not understand it.
Madam Speaker, I commend the NBN to the House. I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I am surprised the opposition does not want to participate in this debate because the opportunities technology brings to business and the education system are far-reaching, broad-ranging and particularly pertinent to the needs of the Territory. I am truly amazed the opposition is not prepared to respond. It is disappointing; this is a house of debate. Whether they like what we say in our statements or not, it invites them to put an alternate view and argument. The fact they are not responding shows they have no faith in Tony Abbott’s election proposal.
I am supporting our Minister for ICT Policy and the National Broadband Network statement he provided to the House today. The $43bn National Broadband Network is a transformational project for our nation; transformational for our economy, for education and, fundamentally, for service delivery. It is a project which will deliver affordable and high-speed broadband to all Australians, up to 1000 times faster than the current services.
Those of us in the Chamber on the wrong side of 40 do not quite grasp the opportunities this delivers as much as those around the 20-year-old mark. Those with teenagers, and older, in our homes understand the younger generations totally grasp the opportunities of broadband and what these faster speeds deliver to them. This is exciting, it is transformational, and I congratulate our minister for bringing this debate to our Chamber.
We live in a digital age, and businesses are adapting rapidly to the challenges this digital age provides. To tap into a super-fast broadband to provide the economic infrastructure our national economy and our businesses need for the future is, I believe, truly transformational. Business through the Internet is growing; it has doubled in the 2008-09 financial year; it is estimated to be worth approximately $123bn to the national economy. Over the same time, an extra 25 000 businesses took orders over the Internet, despite current statistics showing only 27% of business use the Internet to generate business.
The National Broadband Network opens up the Internet to businesses across Australia, guaranteeing super fast Internet access. This is going to generate enormous opportunity for our economy. This project is important to the Territory. To increase Internet access and affordability to Territorians in the bush will transform opportunities in our remote and regional parts of the Territory, including in our key urban growth centres of Darwin and Palmerston, Alice Springs, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Nhulunbuy. It will increase educational opportunities, transform service delivery, support initiatives like e Health, and support business initiatives.
I attended COAG in Darwin and witnessed a presentation from our Department of Health on e Health; how that transfers accurate, up-to-date information on a client’s health regardless of where they are. It cuts through what were previously delays in diagnosis and mistakes in pharmaceutical supplies. E Health has to be one the most exciting advances in the delivery of primary healthcare and is particularly important in the Territory. We have vast distances for health service delivery, and a population base moving in and out of remote and regional centres for health access and delivery, and also people who are mobile in and out of the Territory. Many people come to the Territory from elsewhere. So, e Health is fantastic, and to get this fast speed broadband is critical to improving e Health.
It is important for local jobs. The national broadband network is estimated to generate $1bn over the next eight years in the Territory.
Casuarina has been announced as one of 19 second release sites for fast speed broadband in Australia. I congratulate the federal government, and our minister for ICT Policy, for the foresight of that announcement. Construction is due to commence next year, which will support hundreds of jobs. This significant project, estimated to generate $1bn over the next eight years and support hundreds of jobs, is at risk. It is at risk today because if Tony Abbott is elected Prime Minister on 21 August the project is axed - a $1bn project for our economy, hundreds of jobs at risk, facing the Coalition axe - the Abbott axe.
We have already seen the benefits of broadband in the Territory. The NBN regional black spot program has seen fibre optic laid across the Territory. That project also supported hundreds of jobs. The project highlights the stark difference between the Prime Minister and the federal Coalition. Due to the inaction of former Coalition governments and 18 failed policies, it left behind a broadband network approximately 35 times slower than the fastest nation. As a developed nation, a mainstream economy, we were 35 times slower than the fastest nation in the world. It is a shameful legacy, and we face going back to that shameful past.
The Labor government has a plan to take Australia forward with a truly national high-speed broadband solution. Those of us who followed this debate at a national level recognise how hard it has been for the federal government to negotiate its way through the business parameters and settings to deliver this broadband network; however, it has done it. It has delivered on its commitment, and it is rolling out as we speak. It is affordable for families; affordable for business and provides a service 1000 times faster than what is available today, at 1 GB per second.
In stark contrast, the opposition is in yesterday’s time warp. Its policy goes nowhere near the national broadband planned. It has been described by experts in the field as half-baked. It does not guarantee access across the nation. It does not compare to the super-fast broadband being rolled out by Labor. It is old technology; copper wire which cannot be upgraded, not optical fibre, which is future proof. It relies on the private sector, a policy we know has failed regional and remote Australia and will continue to fail because the cost benefits are not there when rolling out to the more geographically challenged areas of our nation.
They say to the private sector: ‘It is up to you, boys; we will be hands-off as a government nationally’. ‘It is up to you’ will mean no delivery into regional and remote Australia. Shame on the CLP if they are going to support the Tony Abbott plan! They have not spoken tonight, and we will be listening closely because anything said by the CLP will go straight out to businesses, families, and remote areas which totally rely on fast-speed broadband access.
The Coalition said it will shut down the national broadband network. That would slash approximately 25 000 jobs for every year of the roll-out. One thing which will clearly define a nation moving forward versus a nation going backwards is the National Broadband Network and the policy differences between the federal Labor government and the opposition. Do we move forward as a nation? Do we have access? Do we step up to the plate? Do we become globally competitive in an area for individuals and business? Do we head backwards? It will be a stark choice on 21 August.
Madam Speaker, I commend the Minister for ICT Policy for pointing this out to Territorians today.
Mr KNIGHT (Business and Employment): Madam Speaker, I support the statement of the ICT minister. He provides a clear choice in relation to the broadband network for Territorians; a choice to leap forward to an information and communication system fit for the 21st century, or go backwards with Tony Abbott’s plan for an alternative broadband network. It is a choice between Labor, which delivers a social, environmental and economic transformation for all Territorians, and the Liberal opposition, which delivers a return to the failed era of its broadband policies.
It is a choice between a world-class national broadband system, or the string and-tin approach the Liberals have put up. The Liberals want Australia to lag behind countries such as Korea, Japan, Singapore and much of Europe; they want Territorians to be left behind for the future. It is a choice between the biggest nation building project in Australia’s history, a truly visionary project, or a second-class service in which Territorians will continue to pay more for less service.
The National Broadband Network will be Australia’s first national wholesale-only open access high-speed broadband platform. It will encourage competition by retail providers and reduce the cost of broadband services. We will see affordable high-speed broadband services to all Australians, wherever they live and work. It means, for key urban areas, a massive difference. In Darwin, Palmerston, Nhulunbuy, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs we are surviving on 25 MG per second DSL. Labor is proposing 1 GB - 1000 megabytes - which is a massive difference from the current 25 MG per second. Do we get a revolutionary change with the Liberal plan - their real action on broadband? We had 24 MG per second; and we get 24 MG per second under the Liberals. A revolutionary change, which is their vision for technology for the future!
For the areas which shift from 25 MG per second to 1 GB per second it is a massive jump, and covers 90% of Australia with high-speed broadband. In business you are always looking for the competitive advantage and, as Minister for Trade, I understand being internationally competitive is vital also. Why would a pro-business party, the Liberals, want to stop business in Australia from competing internationally? Speed of communication, speed of business and service delivery are the competitive advantages businesses are looking for and the government is providing.
Business is also looking at lower cost service delivery. Providing high-speed broadband reduces the cost to operate in the global scene, and makes business internationally competitive.
The Liberals are proposing nothing; the status quo. We are looking decades into the future and the Liberals, instead of technology for the future, are going to hamstring business, our students, our social networking opportunities for all Australians, our lifestyle; going backwards with our broadband. They are going to maintain the monopolies; there is no mention of what they will do with the Telstra broadband monopoly. They want a patchwork of private sector monopolies to commence, which will not reduce costs.
The Liberals want the private sector to create monopolies around broadband services; the government is proposing vital infrastructure. In the past, roads provided the economic lifting of infrastructure. Now it is telecommunications, ITC, which provides the opportunity for trade; business can reach overseas and be competitive and viable. The Liberals, and Tony Abbott, are stopping business achieving that. He is anti-business and anti-competitive, and is sending people backwards.
Labor proposes to build the infrastructure and wholesale for providers of Internet services at a reasonable price, and create competition in the marketplace. The Abbott plan is piecemeal; it is cheap, it is nasty, and does not cover Australia with an effective broadband system. Small towns across the Northern Territory will gain nothing from the broadband plan of the Liberals. Under Labor, those towns will receive a massive increase in the broadband network, as will the cattle stations.
I have lived in many of those little towns and know it is hard to do business and communicate through dial-up. It is hard to stay in touch with business and families. It is frustrating. We have all been there over the last decade or so; we are all accustomed to using the Internet. Even in parliament the system can be slow.
Imagine that under the Liberal plan - it would be the norm. That is the future they see - slow broadband. Labor is proposing something 1000 times faster than it is now. It is an incredible difference. What that means for business is mind-boggling; the volumes which can be pushed through the system. It provides for television channels, and other forms of communication, to come through the fibre link into your home. It is revolutionary; something we have not experienced in Australia which will take us to a new level of business viability and ability to communicate with Australia and the world.
We are flabbergasted with where the Liberals are going. The Arnhem Land fibre project was an 800 km, $35m optic-fibre link which provided high-speed communications into Arnhem Land. That made a massive difference for the nine communities linked between Jabiru and Nhulunbuy. The project was funded through a partnership between the Territory government, Telstra, Rio Tinto Alcan and the Northern Land Council. Schools along the route jumped from a typical 250 KB satellite link to a 20 MB service. That has changed the way they communicate, the way they do business, and the way their students can access information, reaching out to the worldwide web and bringing information into schools in some of the most remote areas.
Wadeye, in my electorate, has optic fibre coming to the clinics, the police stations, and households. It has changed the way people are able to live; to communicate with friends and family. It is the technology of the future, the tool for our lives for the future.
I am interested to hear from the other side why they accept this cheap and nasty proposal from their colleagues in Canberra. Tony Abbott could not answer some of the most basic questions on his own policy. It has been condemned by business and professionals as sending the country backwards if the Liberals win on 21 August. It will end one of the biggest projects in Australia and the greatest opportunity for business, families, students, academics and professionals to have high-speed broadband in their home and work.
It is a crucial subject; I hope the other side tell us where they are going. I have seen how technology has revolutionised the bush, particularly the e Health electronic records in Katherine. You need the links, and that has to come from broadband. You need the links for people to use, and then we will see massive social and economic changes in the remotest parts of the Northern Territory and Australia. It provides an opportunity I hope we do not lose because we will be sending the country backwards. We are going to hamstring Northern Territory business and our young people.
Madam Speaker, I congratulate the minister on his statement. It is a very important statement. We will see what happens on 21 August and where we head with ICT.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I say at the outset only the most extreme of socialists would welcome this nonsense policy by the Rudd government, picked up by the Gillard government. This is a crazy plan. We have had three decades of privatising telecommunications in Australia. I grew up in a post office in central Queensland. In those days it was run by the Postmaster General, the PMG. Many people will remember the good old PMG. It was privatised, became Telecom, and successive governments, whether Labor or Liberal at the federal level, were behind the privatisation of telecommunications in Australia.
The reason was quite simple. Back in the old days the commercial benefit of telecommunications was not there. It required government to step in and provide those services. Over time, more and more players came into the market and today there are hundreds of businesses in the telecommunications sector. We see, in one fell swoop, Mr Rudd and Ms Gillard saying they want to renationalise telecommunications in Australia. They will spend $43bn putting fibre-optic cable into the ground to be owned by a government organisation, and $43bn is more than the total book value of Telstra. It is a huge lump of money, and when I say the government is trying to renationalise telecommunication services that is an undeniable, undisputable fact.
If the government was sincere about pushing telecommunications into the marketplace and allowing market forces to operate, they would have tendered that work to players capable of doing it and letting them get on with the job.
No, this federal government thinks it can do it better than Telstra, better than the other players out there, and you have to question that decision. Look at their insulation scheme, for instance. For governments, what could be simpler than putting insulation pink batts in the roofs of houses? We have seen hundreds of houses burn down. Hundreds of thousands of houses need to be reinspected and tested. We have seen businesses go to the wall. We have seen people killed under the home insulation scheme, and now they want to spend $43bn of Australians’ money renationalising telecommunications. They cannot even put insulation in the roofs of houses. What an absolute and utter joke, and what a fraud on the Australian people!
It is interesting the minister should make his statement on the National Broadband Network today considering Telstra has been in the media over its falling share price saying, in a large part, it is due to falling sales of fixed phone lines in homes. Why would that be? In the last 10 years fixed lines in homes have reduced by 10% across the country. People are taking fixed lines out of their homes because they are using mobile phones. They are choosing mobility over fixed lines. They own a mobile phone and say: ‘What is the point of having a fixed line in the house?’ They are cancelling their fixed line services; however, Telstra has to maintain those millions and millions and millions of kilometres of fixed line around the country. That is very expensive.
The government wants to replicate that; put fixed lines for computers into homes - high speed broadband, fibre-optic cable into homes, irrespective of the evidence showing people are chasing mobility; they want to take their laptops with them. It is only when I come into parliament I plug my computer into a fixed line. I have a USB wireless modem, and most members will have those gadgets you plug into your computer. It does not matter where you are, provided you have signal, you can take your computer to the mall at lunchtime and tap away; you can sit in your back yard and tap away on your computer; you do not have to be inside your house to use your computer.
This government, for some reason, ignores all the social trends, ignores what people are doing and says: ‘No, we are going to spend $43bn of your money on telecommunications most of the community is moving away from’. It is saying: ‘We are going to spend $43bn of your money digging up your front yard and your driveway putting fibre optic into your home’. That is what it is about.
The government has not mentioned costs for the user. Apart from digging up your front yard, boring holes into your walls to put in this new fibre optic, what are the costs people will be expected to pay? Downloading at speeds of 100 MG per second will cost a minimum of $4000 per premises to bring the technology past the front door so families can benefit from that 100 MG per second download. That is a large amount of money. Most people would not spend $4000 on a computer these days. The price of computers has decreased significantly; that is a large premium for people to pay. Most people would be reluctant to pay so what is the point of it?
Government would be better off beefing up the current wireless services and making them more accessible across Australia. The government says 93% of Australian homes will have fibre optic-to the door. What 93% of Australian homes will be covered?
Yesterday in Question Time the member for Stuart was saying how wonderful the NBN was, and talking about his constituents. It is very unlikely his constituents are going to have fibre optic cable connected to their homes - very unlikely. You will find the 93% of Australians mentioned are located in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide, and maybe Canberra and Perth. If we are lucky, a few dozen homes in Darwin will be connected to high-speed broadband, not people in remote parts of Central Australia. That is a fraud, and to suggest Indigenous people in remote communities are going to have fibre-optic cable connected to their homes is a joke. You have to wonder about the homes they would connect to.
I have listened to debates on SIHIP. The government has already spent approximately $200m and delivered 11 houses. If that is the bang the federal government is getting for its buck, what sort of bang will we get for the $43bn it is throwing into this white elephant called the NBN?
The Rudd government policy is an absolute joke and utterly emblematic of the problems which have faced this government since its election in 2007. Everything it touched turned to custard: the green loan scheme, the insulation scheme, SIHIP, the waste of money with the stimulus spending; the BER scheme; money wasted everywhere. The list is endless. Where is GroceryWatch; where is FuelWatch? Everything the government touches is a failure, and now it is going to spend $43bn on telecommunications. An industry which is enormously fast paced and constantly changing is being run by a government stuck in the past which wants to renationalise telecommunications – wound the clock back on 30 years of government policy and said: ‘No, we are going to renationalise telecommunications’.
The government has turned the clock back further than Paul Keating and Bob Hawke. Keating and Hawke were big on privatising Telstra; they could see the need for competition in the marketplace, they wanted competition and pushed that way.
We now have a new, extreme socialist government which wants to renationalise telecommunications, turn its back on all the hard work and pain former Labor governments wore over many years. This is complete madness. It is complete madness people in the Chamber are welcoming this crazy decision.
I can understand people in central Sydney, central Melbourne, or central Brisbane saying in parliament this is great; this is fantastic for our electorate. However, not in the Northern Territory! This scheme delivers nothing to the Northern Territory. It is typical of what has become a hallmark of Labor: all promises and no delivery.
‘Do not listen to what they say; look at what they do’, is what we say on this side of the Chamber. There is a litany of failure, both at federal and Territory level. If the Territory government has any involvement in this, I wonder what chance it has of going anywhere, because every time this Territory government touches anything, it turns to custard and goes pear-shaped. What a disgrace it is. The current federal government is not much better than the Territory government. It has proven itself to be a joke from Day 1.
People are chasing mobility - mobile phones, iPhones. What I can do on an iPhone is one hundred times more than I could do on a PC five years ago. I can receive e-mails, my contacts, send messages, get onto Facebook and Twitter, post blogs; all sorts of things on a phone! In a few years’ time, people will be watching television and movies on their phone. If government put the same effort into mobility, into wireless networks, and allowed people to access information in a mobile way, it would be better suited to the way Australia is heading.
Telstra is jumping up and down because people are cancelling fixed lines in their houses. If this is not a clear indication of where the future is going, I do not know what is. For the Business minister to say this is good for business, goodness me, you can understand why this government is so moribund of ideas; such a pathetic government - such a shambolic government. If you believe renationalising telecommunications is good for business, you have another think coming.
You should talk to former Prime Minister Keating. Talk to former Prime Minister Hawke – a good union man who stood up for the worker. A bit crazy, however, he had much better ideas on telecommunications than the current government. Both Hawke and Keating were reformists as far as telecommunications went, and did a damn good job. Julia Gillard and the current government want to undo all that work and renationalise telecommunications. This will leave the Territory, and Australia, miles behind the rest of the world in years to come. It is a white elephant; it is a disgrace.
This should not be supported, and I pray, in two weeks time when we go to an election, Australians will see through this total scam and do to Julia Gillard what she did to Kevin Rudd. That is what Australians should do because these people are nuts, and are supported by nut cases in the Northern Territory. You only have to watch them celebrate this announcement and say it is great for the Territory. Goodness me! Do you read anything, do you look at anything, do you talk to people, and do you understand what people are thinking?
To say this is a great thing defies logic. I do not know what is happening to our representatives from the Labor side. Clare Martin and Syd Stirling must be so embarrassed at this point in time, seeing this joke of a government supporting this nonsense; trying to gild the lily. How can you support a government which kills people when putting batts in roofs, and which cannot maintain the GroceryWatch site? It was going to reduce fuel prices by FuelWatch. Where has that gone? Green loans? All these things are a complete disaster. It has been disaster, after disaster, after disaster.
Madam Speaker, for this government to support the federal government is atrocious, and should be seen for what it is.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): What an extraordinary performance, Madam Speaker. I can understand why ex-Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser said he would resign from the Liberal Party because it was not the same party he joined. The Liberal Party has gone to the extreme right wing and sees the government in Canberra as a socialist government. I understand you have not been out of Australia; you have never lived outside Australia. If the Labor Party in Australia is a socialist party, I have news for you. Take a trip to Europe and find out what real socialist parties are. It is amazing you are sliding to the extreme right wing of the political spectrum. You talk about socialist governments in Australia. Your candidate in Alice Springs talks about ‘reds under the beds’, ‘sold Australia to the Chinese’, and ‘they do not have to invade us by weapons because they bought Australia’. This is a ridiculous statement.
I have invested in an iPad. Can I receive a wireless signal from the library - it is only about 10 m away? I cannot. Why? Because the technology is not there. I can only receive a signal because I have a Telstra mini-card, which makes it a glorified mobile phone.
Senator Scullion said his dream was to drive down the Stuart Highway and have telephone reception all the way from Darwin to Adelaide. I have driven up and down the Stuart Highway and the reception I received was patchy; it is not good. If the technology was there reception would be good. Today we have seen an attempt by the CLP, and the Liberal Party, to avoid the harsh reality that unless you spend money you are not going to get a state-of-the-art telecommunications system in Australia which will improve the lives of Australians, improve business and propel us into the 21st century - the real 21st century, not back to the future; not back to the 1900s dial-up.
The member for Fong Lim suggested the reason Telstra has lost money is because everyone switched to mobile phones. That is true. However, he failed to say Telstra has to maintain a network of copper wires all mobile phone companies use. The broadband system delivered today to most houses also uses the copper wire, which has extreme limitations.
If you really want an electronic revolution the way to do it is with optic fibre. The information you can send through optic fibre is enormous compared to what you can send wirelessly; wireless has its limitations. The technology is not there yet, and you cannot have a hot spot combination of copper wire, wireless transmission and fibre.
My portfolios include Health, Primary Industries, and Resources and all want to use information in real time. To give an example, pastoralists want to monitor their fields and animals not by travelling hundreds of kilometres every day but by being at home and monitoring the feeding and watering stations and, at the same time, weighing the cattle. We have this in some places already, but it has limitations. The department of Resources wants to use real time information for exploration, storing information and disseminating information.
The real challenge is in Health. Because of the tyranny of distance, high-speed broadband makes services provided to Territorians much easier if you can do it in real time, efficiently and fast. High-speed broadband makes services like tele-psychiatry and counselling possible, along with rapid diagnosis analysis of X-rays and other tests. The possibilities are endless, and the benefits too high to be risked by Tony Abbott’s sick and nasty policy. Tony Abbott wants to slash innovation and slash services. Rural and remote Australia deserves better than this policy. He has told Australian people he will slash e-Health spending along with super clinics. It is a joke!
Tony Abbott’s is seeking a return to the good old days when GPs were in plentiful supply and would altruistically conduct after-hour visits and bulkbill - that does not happen any more. The reality is different. We need super clinics in the Territory because we do not have enough GPs. Half the number of GPs per 100 000 population do not bulkbill. You have to pay $85, they do not operate after hours, and the pressure placed on the RDH emergency department, and other hospital emergency departments, is incredible. This pressure will increase as our population grows and ages.
We need e-Health services because we want to provide the right diagnosis, the right treatment, at the right time for our patients. It saves time, it saves lives and it should be delivered. The Gillard government is 100% committed. Tony Abbott does not care for it and I am not surprised. Tony Abbott, as a former Health minister, slashed $1bn from the health system and failed to understand the need to train enough doctors and nurses to treat the increasing needs of our ageing population. We do not have enough doctors or nurses because Tony Abbott did not put enough money into training.
The Northern Territory and Australian governments have recognised the importance of e-Health in improving communication between healthcare providers to reduce the possibility of people falling between the cracks. As stated previously, the eHealthNT Shared Electronic Health Record and other e-Health initiatives are only possible where there is widespread use of electronic health records system at the point of care.
To this end the Northern Territory government, assisted in the early stages with financial assistance from the Australian government, accelerated the roll-out of the Primary Care Information System, or PCIS, across its network of remote healthcare centres at a cost of $7.5m over three years from 1 July 2007, including $2.2m from the Australian government to achieve implementation at 54 health centres spread across the Territory. PCIS, and the eHealthNT Shared Electronic Health Record, provide our clinicians working in the most remote communities in the Territory with streamlined access to up-to-date patient information and real time clinical decision support resources.
In the Territory there are now more than 37 000 people registered for this service, including patients of non-government health services across the borders in the APY lands, northern South Australia and the East Kimberleys in Western Australia. Queensland and Western Australia want to be part of the system and to copy it because they find it very efficient.
Terry Mills has not told us where he stands on this important threshold issue. He has not told us if he supports Tony Abbott’s plan to slash e-Health.
The Northern Territory government has invested $2.5m over the last three financial years into upgrading critical ICT infrastructure, and we will be investing a further $850 000 in 2010-11. To improve medication management in hospitals, the government has invested $720 000 over three years from 1 July 2007, including $220 000 from the Australian government to implement MedChart, an advanced electronic medication management system at Royal Darwin Hospital, Katherine Hospital and Gove District Hospital. In 2010-11, $150 000 has been invested to implement MedChart at Alice Springs and Tennant Creek hospitals.
As mentioned in my earlier statement to the Legislative Assembly, an exciting opportunity to build on the Territory’s existing eHealth capability has been provided by the Northern Territory government’s successful application for funding under the Australian government’s Digital Regions Initiative. The Health eTowns Program will deliver dedicated high-speed broadband capacity to health, education and training services in 17 of the 20 Territory growth towns. The Digital Regions Initiative involves a total investment of $16.4m, with the Territory government funding $9.4m and the Australian government funding $7m.
The effects of the projects being undertaken in health under the Health eTowns Program will not be limited to these towns; they will flow on to health centres in smaller communities across the Territory and across the healthcare sector generally.
The Telehealth implementation project is a key project under the Health eTowns Program. The project will use a range of technology to provide patients and clinicians with access to specialist services remotely. It will also assist patient recovery by enabling patients in hospital to remain connected with their families in remote communities.
Telehealth is a rapidly developing area of healthcare where health information is transferred through the phone, the Internet or other networks for the purpose of consulting, case-conferencing or performing remote medical procedures or examination. I was very impressed when I visited the oncology unit and found a communication room where people in Darwin can communicate instantly with people in Adelaide to confer about a diagnosis, a treatment, even to remotely examine a person for treatment.
Another exciting initiative is that Royal Darwin Hospital has developed – this was reported in the newspaper recently - bar-coding people when there is an accident. We have developed a system to communicate instantly with clinicians, nurses or ambulance officers when they attend an accident or place of disaster, where we can put identification codes on people and each and every person can be managed by a hospital not only here in Darwin, also in Perth or Brisbane. We have worked with people in this area in case there is a need for evacuation.
No one denies a doctor must make quick decisions in times of crisis and nurses must be deployed very quickly. That can happen - especially in the Territory where we have the tyranny of distance - only if we have a robust, modern up-to-date electronic transmission system which can transmit data instantly, efficiently and of high quality. What has been proposed by the Coalition opposition is something even the industry itself has criticised severely. It has labelled it as a system more appropriate to the 1970s and 1980s than 2010; they applaud the federal government’s proposal for a fibre-optic system throughout Australia.
Health is critical to all Territorians. We do not have many doctors in the Territory, and many people live in remote communities. We need to not only provide and assess information quickly, but also have this information at hand irrespective of the location of the person. Only a modern system that can withstand the pressure of use can provide this.
My department has both a mobile and regionally dispersed workforce. Given this, the combination of electronic access to information, the ability to review and approve requests online and the capability to collaborate with other departmental officers irrespective of their physical location, will improve the timeliness and quality response to both internal and external requests, and enhance efficiency and productivity.
The department of Resources is involved in key whole-of-government initiatives to allow more citizen and business transactions with government to be completed online. This will deliver greater transparency by allowing online access to systems and real time updates on the status of requests or applications in progress.
There are a range of IT-related innovations occurring in the minerals and energy area which rely on high broadband IT capability. The first is the HyLogger, which advances the activities of our geological survey by providing high definition imagery and hyperspectral analysis of mining core samples, and allows the information obtained to be made available to prospective exploration entities via the Internet. The National Virtual (Mining) Core Library Project aims to capture detailed mineralogical and visual information from mining drill cores through the HyLogger, and to progressively build a high resolution image of earth materials and properties for the upper few kilometres of the Australian continent to allow for world-class geoscience research.
This project is funded by the Commonwealth’s National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy managed by AuScope and implemented by all states and territories. The HyLogger was delivered to the department in February, with preliminary data collection and processing in progress.
My department is also working to deliver Northern Territory mineral occurrences data through the AuScope Discovery portal. The portal also allows simultaneous viewing and querying of data from multiple sources, not just images. The information is delivered in a standard format which can then be utilised by our clients in their own system for research, modelling and decision-making. The investment attraction opportunity presented by such technology is enormous.
Another specific example is the Biosecurity Surveillance Incident Response and Tracing system; very important for somewhere such as the Territory where we have an enormous pastoral industry and rely heavily on export of live cattle. This is a Commonwealth supported system used locally to aid and record surveillance data.
BioSIRT will be used to keep records of the pest and disease status of properties and includes mapping capabilities to assist staff to develop and conduct surveys. It will be accessible Territory-wide by departmental officials and via the Internet. It is a powerful tool to help in the fight against routine and emergency diseases like citrus canker and foot and mouth disease of cattle. Through improved access to information, it will improve the quality of decisions and reduce the time for real action during an emergency response, thus reducing the impact of any incursion. My department is working nationally to ensure BioSIRT can operate both locally and across jurisdictional borders. This system, and others being developed by the department of Resources, plays a vital role in ensuring my department is able to carry out its functions efficiently across all areas.
Madam Speaker, the choice for Territorians is clear. We can advance Australia by embracing the digital age or we can settle for 20th century technology which will deliver 20th century capacity to deliver health services and pursue business opportunities. I believe Australians deserve better than that. They deserve better than the agglomeration of use-by-date technology; technology even the industry itself has openly criticised. That is surprising because before an election industry does not take sides; they have a bipartisan approach. However, people in the IT industry know the Coalition’s proposal is not for the future of Australia; it is a step backwards. It is back to the future.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Deputy Speaker, I see the Whip over there. I ask, through you, after we get through this statement what happens? Are we adjourning the House? Is that the procedure for this evening, Leader of Government Business?
Mr Burns: Talk to your own Whip.
Mr CONLAN: You do not know, or are you too ashamed to admit it?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex!
Mr CONLAN: I suggest it is probably the latter; you would be ashamed to admit you are going to adjourn the House at 6 pm. Is that what is happening? That is my understanding; at 6 pm on the third day of a two-week sittings, we will adjourn the House because you have nothing else to do …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Relevance. We are talking about …
Mr CONLAN: This is relevant, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is relevant to this parliament. This is relevant to saving money, spending money, and this is a statement ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, there is a point of order before me to which I have not responded. If you have queries …
Mr CONLAN: Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: If you have queries about proceedings in the Chamber I suggest you talk with your Whip. Please address the statement on the National Broadband Network, member for Greatorex.
Mr CONLAN: I have some good stuff on health you might want to hear. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know the answer: yes, we are adjourning the House at 6 pm unless something happens to extend parliament to its usual time. You have already shut down at 9 pm. You do not want to work past 9 pm normally. When I finish and, perhaps, the minister’s reply, we will finish about 6 pm, maybe 6.30 pm. It is disgraceful.
If recycling a speech introduced into this Chamber in June is not bad enough, we now see the parliament of the Northern Territory being hijacked by federal issues to prop up your man in Canberra. Question Time was dominated by it today with your dorothy dixers. We see it again today in a recycled speech. This is a carbon copy of a speech introduced in the June sittings - the broadband network and how wonderful it is going to be. We debated this ad nauseam in the previous sittings. Yet, this government indulges itself shamelessly to bring in the same speech as a way to wedge the CLP - how bad we are, how we should burn in hell because we have no idea on anything, and the world should be thankful for the Australian Labor Party and the members in the Northern Territory. Thank goodness and hallelujah for the Labor Party of the NT because where would we be? The dark clouds did, indeed, disperse on that day in August 2001 when the Labor Party came to power ...
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Ring the bells. Thank you, we have a quorum. Member for Greatorex, you have the call.
Mr CONLAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Today, in Question Time, the government was crowing about the BER and how the CLP and federal Coalition want to put people out of work. How quickly they forget the recession we had to have. How many people were put out of work in the recession we had to have under the Keating government? One million people put out of work. How quickly we forget. We do not want to go over that ground, do we? The speculation is all the CLP and federal Coalition want to do is put people out of work because we do not support the BER, or whatever other make-believe you want to bring into this House.
The amount of make-believe that comes here is staggering. You guys say whatever you want and, for some reason, are allowed to get away with it. You say anything you want. It goes on the Parliamentary Record, you feed it to your whiz kids on the fifth floor, and it makes its way into the newspaper. It is an incredible scenario how things unfold in this Chamber. Here we are on day three of a two week sitting, having done pretty much nothing all week …
Dr Burns: Some of us have.
Mr CONLAN: All we have had to do …
Dr Burns: Some of us have.
Mr CONLAN: You guys have done nothing; you have done absolutely nothing. You have put us through the painful task of listening to your propaganda puff piece rubbish. The minister who introduced this statement is listening to his iPod as we speak. He is not even interested. It is beyond belief what is unfolding in this Chamber and what this parliament has reduced itself to.
I am attempting to defend the integrity of the Northern Territory parliament; all you want to do is diminish that integrity. The minister has diminished it in so many ways, and has an extraordinary capacity to diminish his own ministries. I do not know how many you have had - half a dozen, I believe. You get moved from one to the other; you diminish that and destroy the integrity of the ministry. The Chief Minister is forced to move you on. Collectively, you destroy the integrity of the parliament and continue to do so. You are clearly not interested in work. You are a bunch of loafers, plain and simple.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! We have 10 …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: We have a quorum.
Mr GUNNER: … and it is an offence to …
Mr GILES: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, he is not inside the Chamber.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, he is within the Chamber. It is an offence to call a quorum …
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! It is an offence to call notice to the state of the House when the state of the House is a quorum.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is indeed. You are on a warning, member for Braitling.
Mr GILES: Can I speak to the point of order and ask a question, Madam Deputy Speaker?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: There are 10 people in the Chamber. Member for Greatorex, you have the call.
Mr CONLAN: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This government has no clear vision of how to govern the Northern Territory; that has been proven time and time again. We see this daily on our streets. Those of us who live in Alice Springs see it constantly and are relentlessly reminded of the lack of vision, resources, commitment and will by this government to inject any of those things into the great city of Alice Springs. We see it in Darwin on a daily basis, and we see it in Katherine and across the Northern Territory. Poor old Tennant Creek is probably worse.
The government has a clear record on its ability to govern. However, when it comes into the parliament it should try to up the ante and pretend - humour us, and the people of the Northern Territory, who are paying $7000 an hour to run this House; it is quite staggering. It could at least pretend to be working hard. General Business Day yesterday only went for two hours. I was five minutes into an important bill, the Health Complaints Commissioner Amendment Bill, which could have been a good debate. I see the government being brought kicking and screaming, brought somewhere to …
Dr Burns: I thought it went for three-and-a-half hours.
Mr CONLAN: You sat on that review for two years. That is what they think about you, minister. They say: ‘When Burns came to the Health ministry he was given the report and he said he would do something about it. He did nothing’. You did nothing. You did nothing as Health minister anyway: however, you did nothing with the report. That is your reputation. That is what they are saying about you …
Dr Burns: That is what you say.
Mr CONLAN: That is what they are saying about you. How do you think I received that information? A report was commissioned in 1998; it took five years. It was completed in 2003 and handed to the minister in April 2004. It is six years old. Nevertheless …
Ms SCRYMGOUR: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Relevance? This is a statement on the NBN, and I ask you to rule on relevance so we can get to the statement.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Arafura. Member for Greatorex, you do seem to have strayed from the subject of National Broadband Network.
Mr CONLAN: I will get to that as I develop my argument. Nevertheless, this is a statement about statements as a whole; how statements are used as a complete time waster in this parliament. This government …
Members interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: You have absolutely nothing else. You bring in half a dozen pages typed up by some whiz-kid on the fifth floor, some you have not even read. You make it up as you go along and read them out to fill in time. You cannot even get to 9 pm with your puff pieces ...
Dr Burns: You said it! Thank you.
Mr CONLAN: What was that?
Dr Burns: Puff pieces. I have been waiting for it.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CONLAN: That is exactly what they are. Let us go back to the original phrase - it is a propaganda political puff piece. You have all these people on the fifth floor doing this; whiz-kids up there pumping out this paraphernalia of propaganda for you and you cannot even get to 9 pm with it. We will finish at 7 pm tonight ...
Dr Burns: You do not like it here anyway.
Mr CONLAN: I pick up on that point. No, I do not like it when this is the situation. Who does? Do you enjoy sitting here enduring this rubbish? I ask any members, as I said before …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex!
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker!
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please pause, member for Arafura. Member for Greatorex, I ask you to direct your comments through the Chair. With new microphones in the Chamber you do not need to have your voice quite so loud. I draw you back to the point about relevance. Thank you, I would appreciate that.
Mr CONLAN: Certainly, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will be getting to the National Broadband Network as I develop my argument in the 20 minutes I am allocated.
Nevertheless, this is a wonderful job and I feel very privileged to do it. I have a great deal of energy and passion for the job. I assure the member for Johnston, and the Chief Minister, I am not going anywhere until I see the back of this Northern Territory government. I will not be going. I will be doing everything I possibly can, even if it is just holding my seat so it is one seat you do not have. I will be doing absolutely everything to ensure we see the back of this inept, bereft, loafing, lazy Northern Territory government which cannot sit 35 days a year. Thirty-five days a year is all we sit, and you cannot fill those days to at least humour the people of the Northern Territory and give the impression you are working. We see it time and time again. Today is an extraordinary example where you have recycled a previous speech on the National Broadband Network introduced into this House in the June sittings.
We have three statements on the Notice Paper: a BER Statement, Broadband, and Growing International Trade, another propaganda political puff piece introduced by the government.
It is disgraceful, and I resent having to spend time away from the real work I could be doing to endure the nonsense government goes on with day after day after day. If all members looked hard and deep into themselves they would feel the same way, except the Chief Minister. I do not know if the Chief Minister will be winning any Father of the Year awards any time soon. He seems to enjoy wasting time …
Ms McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Twenty minutes in and we have had nothing relevant.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, once again, I ask you to come back to the subject at hand, which is the National Broadband Network.
Mr CONLAN: Absolutely, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am getting there.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: We will be putting it to the relevance test.
Mr KNIGHT: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I would like to remind the member for Greatorex we do not involve our families in debates. Commenting on the Chief Minister’s fathering is out of order; we on this side respect that. A gentle reminder, we keep fathering out of it.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Daly. I am not sure if there is a point of order; resume your seat, please. Member for Greatorex, you have the call and if you can come to the point, please.
Mr CONLAN: You can give it out but you cannot take it. Very easy for you to be grubby and sink to the depths - and you will sink to any depths whatsoever to seek the advantage, and you do it time and time again. The Chief Minister did that recently. My point is the Chief Minister does not care about anything else. He is quite happy to endure this vacuum time and time again, day after day, hour after hour, sitting after sitting, for 35 days a year and not get to the real business of governing the Northern Territory. It is quite pathetic.
The broadband network: it is worth pointing out the Coalition has a steady path towards providing broadband and fast Internet services to all Australians with a $2.75bn open access fibre-optic backhaul network which will provide competition for existing services. It is pretty simple, and that is a fact - leveraging private sector investment of $750m; $1bn for wireless network in outer metropolitan areas, and $1bn for regional wireless networks. There is an additional $750m for fixed broadband optimisation over Telstra’s copper network where Australians cannot currently get sufficient broadband speeds.
There will be funding for satellite services to cover the small proportion of Australians who will not be able to access fixed or wireless broadband services, and cancelling the wasteful policy committed by the Labor government regarding the NBN; $43bn - that is 43 000 000 000, a big figure when you write it down - a $43bn program winding up the failures by bringing the private sector back into the frame.
The Coalition’s plan is to provide 97% of coverage to Australian homes; a simple and visionary plan. As I said in my speech in the June sittings, the future is not hardwired; the future is wireless and mobile phone technology. That is where it will be in five years time. People will not be plugging things into the back of computers. They will be doing all their work on iPhones, or equivalent, in the future. It is pretty simple.
We do not need another propaganda ministerial puff piece, the second one in as many sittings. It is a waste of time - a waste of parliament’s and every member’s time. Every member could be doing other things. I suggested to the member for Arnhem how nice it is through the Arnhem region at this time of year, and how she could be there talking to constituents, solving concerns, addressing issues rather than enduring this constant time-wasting, self-aggrandising back-slapping which is the hallmark of the Australian Labor Party, and the Australian Labor Party of the Northern Territory.
It is quite pathetic; I resent it. I like this job; I want that on the record because I can see it could be peddled, twisted and spun …
Mr Tollner: Bungles will be into it!
Mr CONLAN: Yes, he is rubbing his hands together: ‘Conlan does not like the job; Conlan has had it; Conlan is worn out’. Rubbish! Conlan has plenty of energy and passion. I have just started in politics and, with luck, have a long time to go. I am not going anywhere until I see this incompetent, lazy, bereft, moribund government …
Ms Scrymgour interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: It is good. I wrote down several adjectives, member for Arafura. We can use them collectively and individually - all adjectives apply. It is coming up to 6.05 pm. It is amazing; I guess you are tired and want to finish now. It is getting late, is it not? I am sure you would all rather be somewhere else ...
Ms McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Relevance to the statement!
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, you have gone way off the subject of the National Broadband Network. Could you come back to the subject at hand, please? You are really testing the case of relevance.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Deputy Speaker, I have 30 seconds left and that will do. I hate to see the government being worked too hard. I know they really want to go home ...
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Ms Scrymgour: Your bitterness is starting to really chew you up!
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please pause. A quorum has been called. Ring the bells.
Mr CONLAN: Not at all. I feel for you people because it is getting late; you want to have dinner and go home - I will finish. Lucky you – you can go to your homes tonight. Madam Deputy Speaker, this is another propaganda puff piece; a waste of time …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please resume your seat, your time has expired. We have a quorum.
Ms McCARTHY (Arnhem): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the minister’s statement on the National Broadband Network ...
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Arnhem has the call.
Ms McCARTHY: Madam Deputy Speaker ...
Mr Conlan: Goodnight everyone.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex!
Mr Conlan: I want to say good night; see you Tuesday.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order!
Ms McCARTHY: Madam Deputy Speaker, it is very clear …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The member for Greatorex showed great disrespect for the Chair when not showing obeisance on his way out. I draw your attention to that. I am not asking you to take any action; however, it goes in complete concert with their behaviour over the last three days.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for the point of order, Leader of Government Business. It is noted, and we will be keeping an eye on the member for Greatorex.
Dr BURNS: There is a relevant standing order.
Ms Scrymgour: Standing Order 46.
Dr BURNS: Anyway, I digress.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Indeed, thank you, Leader of Government Business.
Ms McCARTHY: Madam Deputy Speaker, the Labor government is very serious about its commitment to deliver high-quality accessible and affordable broadband to Australians across the country, from city dwellers to regional, rural, and remote residents.
As we have seen by the behaviour in the House this afternoon and on previous days, the opposition has no regard or respect for the people of the Northern Territory in this House, a House where we represent our constituents. We must put on the record, in this important time for all Australians who are about to vote, they have a real opportunity to choose which party is working for them. Clearly, the opposition does not want to have a bar of that; it does not wish to put on the record how farcical the policies of the Coalition are.
This House of law governs the people of the Northern Territory. We discuss, debate and highlight the differences between the many policies, not only across the Northern Territory, across Australia. If the opposition feels it is a farce and it can be disrespectful to this House, and the debates and statements being made, they ought to be ashamed.
The Labor government in the Northern Territory, and the Gillard government, recognise the importance to our economic development of ensuring Australia prospers now and into the future. Fast, reliable broadband is essential for education, medicine and health, sole business, local government and engagement with the rest of the world. As minister for Regional and Indigenous Development and Local Government, I begin by saying what federal Labor’s National Broadband Network will mean for our 20 growth towns in the Northern Territory.
We are at the beginning of major reform across the Northern Territory. It is pivotal we work with a federal government which is aware of these reforms. Our vision for Territory growth towns includes them having all the services and opportunities of comparable towns in rural Australia. We are taking on the challenge of years of neglect and building strong, prosperous growth towns for the benefit of every resident of our regions across the Northern Territory. It is about building local economies, creating training opportunities and real jobs for people by working with the land councils, the business community and local people. Fast, reliable and affordable broadband is a key to this success ensuring effective communications for business, schools, shires, health clinics and families. High-quality, accessible and affordable broadband will increase the IT capabilities and connectivity of shires across the regions.
As the Minister for Information, Communications and Technology Policy told this House, the National Broadband Network is about universal access and connection. It will open up a whole new world, economically, socially and environmentally. This is particularly so for Territorians living in our growth towns. Currently, broadband can be accessed in all but four of our 20 growth towns. Business, health workers, shires and families have access to broadband in Maningrida, Wadeye, Borroloola, Gunbalanya, Ngukurr, Numbulwar, Gapuwiyak, Yuendumu, Yirrkala, Lajamanu, Kalkarindji, Ramingining, Hermannsburg, Papunya, Elliott and Ali Curung.
Under the National Broadband Network, broadband will be delivered in the other four remaining growth towns of Angurugu, Milingimbi, Nguiu and Galiwinku by new generation satellite services. For the 16 growth towns already with access to broadband, the National Broadband Network will deliver significantly increased data speeds; a minimum of 12 megabits per second – a considerable increase. The current maximum data access speed available in these 16 growth towns is 256 kilobits per second.
The Territory government will work in partnership with a re-elected federal Labor government to maximise these data speeds. The National Broadband Network will directly support up to 25 000 local jobs every year, on average, over the eight year life of the project. Yet, Tony Abbott and the Liberals will cancel federal Labor’s existing arrangements and commitment to a national broadband network. Worse, under Tony Abbott and the Liberals alternative broadband scheme, our growth towns will be no better off than they are now.
There are three main reasons why our growth towns would be no better off under Tony Abbott and the Liberals: first, the Liberals broadband scheme would only provide up to $6.3bn in total over seven years in grant and investment funding. This dollar figure would not be sufficient to match federal Labor’s national broadband plan for the bush. For our growth towns this means there is no guarantee broadband will be delivered to Angurugu, Milingimbi, Nguiu and Galiwinku. For our 16 growth towns where broadband is already being delivered, data speeds will remain at current levels. These towns would be no better off under Tony Abbott and the Liberals. Business, schools, shires, health clinics and families in these 16 growth towns would not be able to access the increased data speeds which would be made possible by federal Labor’s National Broadband Network. In contrast, federal Labor will invest $43bn in the National Broadband Network increasing broadband speeds and ensuring full coverage to our 20 growth towns.
The second reason our growth towns will be no better off under Tony Abbott and the Liberals is the Liberal scheme for delivering broadband in the bush relies on subsidising private sector investment. The Liberal proposal is nothing new. We already subsidise private sector telecommunication investment in the bush. We have a proven track record. For example, the partnership between the Northern Territory government, Australian government, Telstra, Rio Tinto and the land councils made it possible to extend broadband services from Darwin across Arnhem Land to Nhulunbuy.
In my travels on the Central Arnhem Highway and the goat track, in my beautiful electorate of Arnhem up to Ramingining, you can see where those cables have been laid. The incredible amount of work done over many weeks through the terrain to lay that network was quite extraordinary. It was also innovative, creative and it gives people in the bush and in Arnhem Land choice, and connects them to the rest of the world in a way we have never seen before.
I have seen the important benefits of the broadband partnership and what it has brought to my electorate of Arnhem. I do not have to be there today to know what it means to my constituents. I also know my role as the member for Arnhem is to be in this House of law and express why these initiatives are imperative to improving the lives of my constituents and access to communication for my constituents.
At Garrthalala in your electorate, Madam Deputy Speaker, I witnessed firsthand students using their green laptops to access the Internet, tapping into a whole new world of education and training potential. The Liberals scheme for delivering broadband in the bush by subsidising private sector investment is the system we already have. We are already doing it! We have the proven track record and experience to continue with this work.
The final reason our growth towns would be no better off under the Liberal broadband scheme is broadband would be no more affordable than it is now. Tony Abbott and the Liberals have no plan to separate telecommunication competition. As chief executives of Optus, Primus, Macquarie Telecom, Internode and Transact indicated earlier this year, the National Broadband Network addresses the reality that right now Telstra holds an industry monopoly. The Liberals have no plan to change this situation. Under Tony Abbott and the Liberals, private sector telecommunication providers will only be able to deliver broadband services in competition with Telstra if they negotiate to use Telstra’s cables or construct their own telecommunications infrastructure.
As John Lindsay of Internet provider, Internode, said in April this year:
In contrast, under federal Labor the National Broadband Network company, NBN Co and Telstra have reached a heads of agreement to redress this problem. The National Broadband Network will relieve Telstra of driving the universal service obligation set up under the Howard government so Telstra can be free to pursue shareholder value; free of the mess the Liberals left it in. This means the National Broadband Network will open the way for other private telecommunications providers to deliver broadband services, driving prices down and making fast, reliable Internet more affordable. Federal Labor plans to create a new entity called USO Co to ensure the needs of regional Australians, such as the Northern Territory, continue to be served. This will take over the universal service obligations from 1 July 2012.
I will say it again: if a Liberal government is elected on 21 August our growth towns will be no better off. Territorians in our growth towns deserve better than this.
As the Minister for Information, Communications and Technology Policy informed this House, a National Broadband Network will deliver optical fibre to the homes and businesses of Territorians in Darwin, Palmerston, Katherine, Nhulunbuy, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs. The fibre optics which already span these areas does not yet reach our homes and businesses. A National Broadband Network would extend existing fibre-optic cables to homes and businesses. It would stop bottlenecks when large numbers of people are using broadband Internet. The result will be faster, more reliable Internet for Territorians living and working in these areas and, for the benefit of the member for Fong Lim, there are many people in the growth towns, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, who would like to know they can access this new world of technology.
The National Broadband Network will increase data speeds to 100 MB per second; 100 times faster than those currently used. Faster Internet is important for families, for education, for medicine, health and small business. IT communication, especially for health workers in our regions, means they will be able to use the consultancy for medicinal needs. Places such as Sunrise Health Service in the Katherine region are able to link up through e-Health and other IT technology. These things can be advanced, and would benefit from the National Broadband Network. We know the health of Indigenous people has to be improved, and we need smarter ways of doing it. Accessing information from doctors, from specialists - for close to six months of the year towns are isolated and we need other ways to access information.
Federal Labor’s National Broadband Network is a national building plan which will connect our Territory growth towns and, indeed, all Australians with next generation technologies.
In 2008, during the second reading speech of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network) Bill in the Senate Liberal Senator, Simon Birmingham, said:
That was in 2008, yet Tony Abbott and the Liberals say they will scrap federal Labor’s plan of a National Broadband Network if elected on 21 August. Tony Abbott and the Liberals would substitute this plan with a $6.3bn scheme which would leave all Territorians, particularly, those living in our 20 growth towns, no better off.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we will work with the re-elected Gillard Labor government to deliver better quality, more accessible and more affordable broadband to Territorians to ensure our economic development and prosperity into the future. The National Broadband Network is not a white elephant, as Tony Abbott would have Territorians believe; it is a nation building plan everyone receives.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, once again my contribution will be a Gillard/Abbott-free speech because I am not an expert on broadband. I was looking up the web page on the Internet - yes, I know how to work the Internet – and people were putting comments about various politicians’ viewpoints. Malcolm Turnbull commented on Labor’s contribution to broadband, and at the bottom was a series of comments. I would say 50% of those comments were for and 50% were against who had the best policy. Some people, perhaps my age, said: ‘What are you all talking about?’
I enjoy the technology I need; I do not like being told I need new technology. I recently attended an Optus function at SKYCITY. I was with people from Optus who were telling everyone the marvellous things they are bringing in - new computers we will one day have implanted in our ear and be able to do everything by moving our mouth. I want to choose if I want to be driven or controlled by technology. I will take the technology I need; not technology where I am pushed down a commercial path.
I am interested in what is happening to the Internet, and I understand the importance of broadband throughout the Northern Territory. I am not going to argue which party has the best policy; I am not equipped for that. Ask me about chooks, about growing watermelons; do not ask me whether Labor policy on broadband is better than the Coalition policy.
In relation to broadband and what we have heard from the federal government, the issue concerning me is we are getting a system feeding into the main centres of the Northern Territory; straight down the track and out to Kununurra - that is it.
The member for Arnhem said there is already broadband in quite a few growth towns. I am unsure if she means landline or satellite. My understanding, from reading the report, is the broadband the growth towns will receive is a maximum of 12 MB per second, whereas the landline system in Darwin, Katherine, Elliott, Ti Tree, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs will be around 100 MB per second.
I understand it is a very expensive program, and both the federal and Territory government have said the growth towns are about closing the gap; about increasing opportunities for Aboriginal people to create businesses and develop and normalise the town. That is the common phrase being used. However, we do not give them the opportunity to be equal to the rest of the Northern Territory. We give them 12 MB instead of 100 MB. The government is saying it supports growth towns, supports closing the gap; however, will give about 15% of what other people are getting throughout the Northern Territory and main parts of Australia.
The government said communities which are not receiving land-based broadband will get satellite. I took information off the NBN Co Limited website, the company which will deliver this service, on what is satellite broadband. It discusses technical constraints of satellite broadband and latency - the time taken for the signal to go to the satellite and return – which can be fairly important. I have been told by an expert if latency is too great you lose your connection; if it is too long you can lose your connection, which can be frustrating for people dialling up. One of the problems is as satellites use very high frequency for transmission they are susceptible to interference, or blocking, by atmospheric conditions, including heavy rain or line of sight obstructions such as trees. Many of our growth towns in the tropics receive heavy rain. When I had an Optus connection for the Internet in my office, every time it rained I had no Internet.
It is fine to say Aboriginal people will be getting broadband; the advantages are there, we know that. However, the government is giving growth towns 10% not 100%, which is a shame. The Northern Territory government should be saying to the federal government: you believe in closing the gap, in giving people equal opportunity in the growth towns so, from an IT point of view, let us give them that opportunity. Give them the same opportunity as other people in the Northern Territory. That needs looking at. If you are going to spend billions of dollars why not do it properly? It concerns me, and I have not been told anything different.
I was at Laynhapuy Homelands and visited Garrthalala; they are hoping to build a secondary school there. There is an optical fibre network going right past the door, more or less, from Katherine to Nhulunbuy; however, they are not connected. The question I ask the minister is: ‘Are people who are within a reasonable distance of existing high-speed Internet systems going to be connected to it?’
Recruiting teachers will always be a difficulty in those areas, especially when developing a secondary school. High-speed broadband has the advantage of having a teacher in Katherine, Nhulunbuy or Charles Darwin University to teach students. That area has not been discussed.
I have received a briefing from Power and Water Indigenous Essential Services. They want to reduce the number of generators in communities by putting a bigger power station in perhaps Arnhem Land, and transmitting to communities such as Maningrida and Ramingining. Less power will then need to be generated from powerhouses. Why are we not looking at setting up an electricity grid from Channel Island and connecting up to all those communities using the electricity lines as part of a broadband connection - broadband over power lines? I have taken this from a website called Howstuffworks ‘Computer’, which says:
I realise that is lower than what currently exists; however, this technology is being used in cities in the United States, the United Kingdom, and many European countries. Therefore, are we thinking enough about the multiple uses of existing facilities or, if we were to run broadband to the growth towns, could we put a gas line in the same trench and share the cost of construction? Could we use power lines to hook the growth towns into the main powerhouse and also for broadband? Someone else will have to argue whether that will work.
However, let us not have a process where one government will put broadband into the Northern Territory. Perhaps we can share the cost. Perhaps we can reduce costs by sharing the opportunity to take gas to powerhouses in remote areas and take broadband with it. Could we take power lines to those areas and use them for transmission of broadband? I am happy for more technical people to tell me that it is not possible. With such a big program - in Australia we sometimes do things in isolation - there is room for some thinking outside the square, especially in relation to getting broadband out into the growth towns.
Material I have read suggests high-speed broadband is more expensive than existing broadband; probably because you have to recover much of the cost. How does that work in a street where you can receive high-speed broadband but simply do not want it or you do not need it? High-speed broadband is for people who want to download heaps of data, or upload data. It might be good for video and television - it gives good quality and could be used in schools for teaching. However, can an average person who wants to get on the Internet occasionally, send a few say: ‘No, I will have the 12 megabits and pay less. Why do I need 100?’ It is similar to having a V8 turbo. I only want to go to the shop - can I have the 4-cylinder version, which could be cheaper? Do people have an option of not paying for the deluxe model of broadband? Good for some people - good for isolated communities who might want to talk to a doctor; police might want to download data immediately. Those things have great benefit for certain groups of people; however, many people only want to send an e-mail or log onto the Internet for information. Others may want the luxurious version. If they want to pay for it that is fine; however, the average person should not have to pay for the luxurious model.
I belong to a fairly large group of people who, maybe because of my age, or perhaps I do not really care - not because I am not interested, I let other people ...
Ms Purick: Not relevant.
Mr WOOD: That is right. I let other people tell me the technical issues; I look at the social issues. I ask how we can deliver this in a more appropriate way and share costs with other instrumentalities. That is the area I would like to debate. I will not debate whether the Coalition policy is better than Labor; I do not know and have not had time to talk to technical people who can tell me. Technical people on both sides are saying one is better than the other. I am unsure how you take the politics out of technology. It is like saying this plane is better because the Labor Party like it, it is more comfortable. The other side says the plane is no good; this wing span is better. It gets into a political fight, which confuses me.
I would like to survey of the Assembly: Let us have a quiz night about broadband. What is 100 MB? Hands up those who know what a megabyte is?
A member: Very small.
Mr WOOD: I would say it is a small bite from a little dog.
I might ask: what does DSL stand for? What does ASL stand for? What does ASL+2 stand for? What is fibre? What is wireless? I have introduced a new one - broadband over power lines. Who in this House is an expert? Who knows about PDSL – power line digital subscriber line? I can sound terrific - ask me what it is about ...
Ms Purick: No idea.
Mr WOOD: I have some idea; I am not totally dumb. However, if everyone was here I would say: ‘Excuse me, does anyone know what PLT is?’ It is power line Telecom.
I do not believe I am the only person who does not understand. I am not the smartest person when it comes to IT; however, that does not mean I cannot participate in the debate. If this technology is good for Australia we should debate it and not let politics get in the way of science or costs. I am somewhat bewildered by the cost. Sometimes we talk about billions as if it is dollars and cents. $43bn is many houses for Aboriginal people. If we are spending $43bn I want to ensure it is going to do what is intended. If it does what it says and helps the country, you have my support. Let us ensure it is not spent like the pink batts and SIHIP; it is done carefully and wisely and we keep a tab on where it is being spent.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will leave it there. Growth towns should receive the same deal as the main towns in the Northern Territory. Give them the IT equipment and look at possible sharing of infrastructure. Power and gas could be taken across the Territory in the same lines as broadband. That is an option we should think about.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Deputy Speaker, I listened intently to the member for Nelson and I am going to throw away my preparation and take the politics out of this.
The member for Nelson is absolutely right when it comes to some of the recent debates in this House. We are using this option to fight the federal election. I have to be honest, my preparation is all about doing that and I am not going to use it. I have a few notes and I have searched the Internet and found a blog by an expert which removes the politics.
The $43bn scares the hell out of me. I know the trouble a family can go through when they get themselves into debt. We are going to the federal level and talking $43bn, and if that money is wasted and has to be paid back - if it does not do what is expected - as the member for Nelson said, we are in much pain to pay that back. Think of the Indigenous houses that will not be constructed because we are attempting to meet the debt created by a $43bn loan.
Governments, even our own Treasurer, suggest Australia is in a far better position than many countries around the world. However, it is used as an excuse to go further into debt; we are nowhere near as bad as some other countries. If not for the previous government, perhaps we would not have come off the same field some countries have. The previous government left this country in surplus; it was handed over in good condition.
I worry when we talk about these numbers and do not bring them down to what the average person can think about - someone who earns $500 a week, $300 a week, even $700 or $800 a week. What $43bn means is not comprehended; does not add up in type of home life.
In relation to politics, one side has promised this big $43bn program with no real knowledge of how it is going to work. The blog I will read from shortly goes into detail and explains it quite well. The conservative side of politics wants to expand our Internet services and improve things in a more managed way and provide a backbone for business and technology to grow without interfering too much. I worry that the current conservative side of politics is criticised for not coming out with big issues and spending more money. I would hate to promise something when I do not know how much I have in the bank.
I was speaking to a gentleman recently who works for a telco. He told me optical fibre runs across this country and there is no need to re-run it in many places; it is a waste of money. The technology at the start of the fibre, and on the way down to wherever you are going, is the important part. It is the software, the computer capacity, of what is at each end. The fibre has not changed much in the last decade; it is the same optical fibre. However, the computing capacity at each end is what needs to be upgraded. Why do we need more optical fibre, particularly in areas where the fibre already exists? This was his argument. Yes, we need to upgrade the systems at each end for what is going down the optical fibre but the fibre itself does not need to change. It is the same fibre as a decade ago when optical fibre was being rolled out. The computers have changed, the capacity has changed, but not the conduit running from Adelaide to Darwin, or wherever to wherever.
The government provides hollow promises. The member for Casuarina used an anecdote where he was promising pastoralists and others could use this technology and be in their house and have water turning on and off in the middle of their property, perhaps also opening and closing different shutters. That technology is available today. He gives the impression this optical fibre is going to run to every pastoralist in the Northern Territory. That is not going to happen. You know it is not going to happen, and to say it will is misleading.
I found on the Internet a blog by Sean Kay. He is a senior Australian IT executive. This is his opinion; it takes the politics out:
This is what he thinks.
If we have this fabulous network in Australia, the moment we surf the Internet and go overseas we are reduced to that cable capacity. The Internet is all about the world wide web – www - world wide web. How can this be so fabulous for Australia if, as soon as we go onto the Internet to download something, perhaps education or medical - something from the United States or England - we are no better off because we do not have optical fibre running out of Australia.
Back to the blog:
Mr McCARTHY (Lands and Planning): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the minister’s statement on the roll-out of the National Broadband Network. I would like to comment on the member for Nelson’s participation in the debate. Once again, good pragmatic commonsense initiatives, which are one end of the project - the vision, the ambition and the courage in nation building down to the fine end, to the micromanaging of how the project is delivered.
Looking at cable television in the urban areas, it was quite logical to use exiting infrastructure. Cable television throughout the city of Sydney utilised existing aerials supporting the delivery of electricity. It was common sense; it worked. No one was marching into a $1m home with a jackhammer, a bobcat and a ditch-witch, as the member for Fong Lim suggested today; heavy machines barging into people’s front gardens busily tunnelling to put in fibre optic or cable technology.
A long time ago telephone lines used existing technology, and the member for Nelson has a very good point; it comes down to the delivery end. When we mention co-existing technologies, I will share a brief story about the completion of the gas pipeline coming from the main north-south line to the McArthur River Mine.
I stumbled into a Christmas party/celebration party on the completion of the gas line at Daly Waters. However, there was a sombre mood and I could not quite work out the problem; you had the Christmas party and the celebration of a major construction project to complete a gas pipeline. They had lost the pig. I said not to worry, we will find a new pig; there were plenty of pigs at Robinson, Calvert and Woollogorang. However, the pig was a device which went into the gas pipeline. They shoot it, at high speed, through the pipeline to check it has been constructed properly and the pipe was clear. The pig was missing somewhere between the Highway Inn and McArthur River Mine. I suddenly started to understand the sombre nature of these high-tech construction workers who had lost their pig.
I took a great interest in gas pipelines, and from my humble knowledge of gas pipeline technology and broadband technology, I can see some services do not co-exist. I recently travelled across the top road to Maningrida, Ramingining into Nhulunbuy following the new fibre-optic line. Having researched how that is laid - the technology is very sophisticated; they move in fast, there is minimal environmental impact, and a great result. However, Tennant Creek to Ali Curung has a power line. The member for Nelson’s ideas are brilliant.
That links to the tragedies which occurred with pink batts - vision, courage, a government determined to deliver good green initiatives. However, unscrupulous operators, people trying to take advantage of the system led to consequences which proved fatal for a number of young Australians.
Governments cannot do it all. Governments can set the benchmark and provide resources and vision. However, there is a very high level of trust needed, which pinpoints good management. Australian governments have learned some very valuable lessons in relation to a stimulus fiscal policy.
The Gillard Labor government’s commitment for a National Broadband Network is a vision for the future of Australia, for what we can achieve. It is truly a nation building project. The Gillard government knows a National Broadband Network is needed if Australia is to successfully take its place among world economic, social and environmental leaders.
I have great memories of a 1968 HK Holden panel van. What a mighty auto that was! It served me well in the Northern Territory. However, it would not be so good these days. We needed to move to better technology. When you had dad in the back yard helping you with the distributor and the points, you had no fear about messing with technology. Now you need to be very careful messing with the computer operations in a modern motor vehicle - and so we should. Industries are created around doing that. That is part of life moving forward - technology.
The Internet has revolutionised the way Australians communicate, conduct business and socialise. More than 25 000 businesses received orders over the Internet during 2008-09. Many in this House would, or have family members who, shop online from retail chains and sites such as eBay or Grays Auctions. How many of us turn to the Internet rather than the hard copy White Pages when looking for a local business? Google, Facebook, and YouTube are almost daily habits.
The National Broadband Network will take the Internet to the next level for the benefit of all Australians. The member for Brennan questioned whether Australia needs it, and is it connected to the outside world? The starting point for me, having lived in regional and remote areas for more than half my life, is Australia is a massive country. The challenge for an efficiency-driven Australia is to connect ourselves. The National Broadband Network in the Territory will deliver into homes in Darwin, Palmerston, Nhulunbuy, Katherine, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs, right across the Territory, let alone the country, enabling us to access Internet at 100 times faster than most can now. Impressively, the NBN will also deliver next generation wireless and satellite services to the Northern Territory at rates about 20 times higher than currently experienced using those technologies today. More than 25 000 jobs will be created with the construction of the NBN.
In the Northern Territory, the roll-out of the NBN will inject $1bn into the economy over eight years and create untold opportunities. These opportunities are the most exciting because the potential in business, health, education, culture, engagement, is almost limitless - the way of the future.
We know Territorians want access to high-speed broadband - look at Territory 2030. As members know, the Territory 2030 strategic plan was developed in consultation with Territorians and sets out a road map for the Territory’s future. Throughout the plan, again and again, Territorians have told us they want access to broadband in our cities, towns, communities, libraries, schools, and businesses. A quote from page 66 of the plan puts the case plainly:
Loud and clear; Territorians want a high-speed broadband network because it delivers efficiency. Yet, the Country Liberals and a Tony Abbott Liberal government think they know better. They would pull the plug on the National Broadband Network. They are telling us we are wrong, we do not need access to technology which would take us into the future. The Liberals are telling Territorians we should be happy with what we have. We should be happy with a grab bag of outdated, slower technology which will not come near our needs. The Liberal plan would deny Territorians access to computer technology they rightly deserve. That is not good enough.
I have lived in some pretty remote places where contact with the outside world was possible only through HF radio and, then, radio telephones. I value the Internet connecting Territorians with each other, with Australia, and the outside world. I do not want to see the Territory lag behind in access to technology and services because the Liberal Party has pulled the plug.
This government is delivering now and investing in the future of the Territory with a $1.8bn infrastructure budget for 2010-11. We are connecting the Territory by investing more than $330m in our roads. We are investing in education, with $886m for school infrastructure and more teachers. We are investing in health, with a record $1.16bn in hospital and clinic infrastructure, health services and more nurses. Also in community safety, including $310m for police and emergency services. These investments are across the Territory in our cities, regional centres and growth towns. This is real vision; this is delivering.
As Territorians, we know the challenges posed in delivering projects and services as a result of our vast geographic distances. In the Barkly electorate I have firsthand regular experience travelling across vast distances to meet and do business with constituents. There are additional challenges in delivering services to close the gap on Indigenous disadvantage in health, education, housing, and community safety, particularly in the bush. With vast distances between communities, high-speed broadband will help Territorians have access to better, faster, more efficient services.
Take healthcare: we are delivering extra nurses, mobile services like dental and renal care, and hospital and clinic infrastructure. Improvements in e Health through the NBN will support health workers through improved access to medical support and information to assist with diagnosis, treatment, and patient management. It will also reduce the number of patients who have to leave their family and community for medical assessments. This story is told to me by nurses in remote areas, by health professionals and doctors; it is simple efficiency which can be delivered by high technology. That is what this plan is about. However, the Country Liberals and Tony Abbott want to pull the plug on the potential this project delivers.
Distance will no longer be a barrier to doing business across our vast geography. With improved opportunities to grow Territory enterprises through e-business, the face of small business will change and grow with more home-based businesses able to access Internet services at speeds normally only found in Australia’s largest cities. People living in remote and regional centres will have access to the technology to enable them to carry out business online without travelling for hours, and also reduce our carbon footprint.
One of the major changes in teaching was the introduction of smart board technology. SMART boards benefit students and teachers but we can do better. The NBN will mean access to the Internet as a resource tool at speeds of up to 100 times faster. For bush kids, the NBN will bring them closer to their counterparts in town. It will make the use of the Internet and its world of information an everyday part of the learning process, broadening horizons and opening opportunities. I am proud to be from a generation of teachers who carried a piece of chalk; however, things have moved on. It has become better and we must go with technology; it is the way of the future, the way of our planet, and the way to deliver efficiencies.
I hear the Country Liberals will not support this project, and Tony Abbott has clearly outlined to the Australian public if elected on 21 August he would not support it either.
With a national broadband network police officers, particularly in our remote communities, will connect with the main system in a timely fashion, rather than waiting for their computer to connect to the network. What a difference it will make to all Australians.
This government is growing the Territory by turning off land five times faster than before. The new suburbs of Bellamack, Zuccoli, Mitchell and Johnston are future homes for Territorians. These new suburbs will have fibre-to-home technology. With NBN, they will be downloading at rates of 1 GB per second. Tony Abbott’s cheap and nasty plan would keep Internet access at these future homes stuck in technology of the past. As the Territory 2030 strategic plan notes, the development of a tropical, sustainable and liveable city of Weddell presents a great opportunity for the Territory; an opportunity to design a city which would be a model for cities and towns of the future, with sustainable homes, and the integration of broadband and communications infrastructure. It is an opportunity which would not be fully realised without the National Broadband Network.
In relation to an example of operational capacity within the Department of Construction and Infrastructure, the National Broadband Network will assist this department, and government, increase productivity and reduce response times. A new asset management system is currently being developed to maximise the potential of new information and communications technology. Officers from the Department of Construction and Infrastructure will be able to log onto the system remotely to access and provide status reports, arrange works, and track the status of projects within a geographical location.
The benefits of being able to access information about works under way within a particular area will bring about increased efficiencies. This new system will facilitate closer relationships with clients to develop a variety of program scenarios, better planned projects, and take advantage of opportunities to combine major projects to achieve economies of scale.
A relatively untapped resource which could be enhanced with the roll-out of the National Broadband Network is the development of business in the sought-after area of Indigenous ecological knowledge. Arts, science, biodiversity and pharmaceutical areas have long held Indigenous ecological knowledge in high regard. The access opened up by the NBN would allow Indigenous elders and leaders to conference with interstate companies without having to leave their homes in the Territory - an important consideration, particularly in the areas of health, family and research.
In the area of the arts, Kathy Keele, CEO of the Australia Council says:
We will never know what could be done if Tony Abbott has his way and reduces Australia’s opportunity to move with the rest of the world.
In conclusion, in many ways Territorians do not enjoy the same easy access to services available in other states. The NBN would put Territorians on an equal footing. It will benefit all of the Northern Territory. In contrast, the Liberal government’s grab-at policy will leave the Territory sadly lacking.
Madam Speaker, this is an important issue for Territorians, and I thank the minister for bringing this statement to the House.
Dr BURNS (Public and Affordable Housing): Madam Speaker, I have been listening carefully to the debate on this very important topic. After the outburst by the member for Greatorex, I was asked by the media why we are debating this tonight. As the member for Greatorex said, is it not a rehash of what has been placed on the Parliamentary Record previously? What is the relevance of this; it is a national policy? My response is: it is a national policy, however, we are debating it through the prism of what is in the best interests of the Northern Territory’.
I have heard much passion from the member for Arnhem, the minister and, most recently, the member for Barkly. I also enjoyed the offering by the member for Brennan.
I was taken aback at the frustration and anger of the member for Greatorex. He was called on relevance quite a number of times, and eventually came to the important issue of national broadband with about five minutes remaining. He was accusing government of finishing parliament early by finishing at 6 pm. He kept asking me the time; I can tell him what time it is now. The big hand is on 20 and the little hand is on 7. The minister has to wrap up yet; we are still working. We have adjournments to go, and I remind the member for Greatorex the opposition can put forward matters of public importance.
There was a time I was glad the opposition was putting matters of public importance forward around this time of night - issues government may not have been comfortable with in some cases, calling government to account, putting forward an opposition view on important issues affecting the Territory. I have not seen much of that lately. Maybe next week they will, and I welcome that. However, to accuse government of being lazy - he should be looking in his own back yard, his own party room, his own strategy. He might not be part of the strategy group, which might explain the frustration. I get the feeling it is very deep-seated. That is another issue for the member for Greatorex.
NBN is an important issue. There are important differences between what the Labor Party is putting forward as policy and what Tony Abbott has most recently put forward, and it deserves debate in this House. As the minister said, it will have a big effect in the Territory, particularly if Tony Abbott is elected, because they are going with a free enterprise model. Free enterprise models in telecommunications in the past have meant the more remote parts of the Territory with smaller populations, smaller avenue for profit and costlier operations, miss out. That is why we are debating this tonight, and why we have this important statement before the House.
In earlier debate, the Minister for Business and Employment said words to the effect of: a choice between Labor which delivers a social, environmental and economic transformation for all Territorians, and the Liberal opposition that delivers a return of the failed era of their broadband policies. Further on he said something like we want Australia to lag behind countries such as Korea, Japan, Singapore and much of Europe.
Stark words, and what we are debating this evening. The member for Fong Lim also spoke with passion, and I commend him for his offering.
The minister said building the NBN delivers over 25 000 jobs nationally each year, and in the Territory alone the NBN and related investment will be in excess of $1bn over the next eight years. These are substantial investments in the Northern Territory, and it is important we see some of the contrast. Regarding contrast and connections, the Liberal Party policy indicates it will only make available high-speed connection to broadband where, by contrast, the NBN guarantees 93% of premises will be connected to high-speed broadband. That is quite a stark difference.
The minister said building the NBN delivers over 25 000 jobs nationally each year, and in the Territory alone the NBN and related investment will be approximately $1bn over the next eight years. These are substantial investments in the Northern Territory, and it is important we see some of the contrast and connections. The Liberal Party policy indicates it will only make available high-speed connection to broadband, whereas the NBN guarantees 93% of premises will be connected to high-speed broadband. That is a stark difference.
The Minister for ICT Policy referred to Internet Industry Association Chief Executive, Peter Coroneos’ statement that the private sector has had time to deliver broadband and has only made the decision to do so where it makes commercial sense. The minister asked: where does it make commercial sense? It is where the population centres are. It is not in the diverse population and geography of the Northern Territory. It might be marginal in Darwin and Palmerston but it would not be viable out bush, and in Tennant Creek, Katherine and Alice Springs.
I listened with interest to the member for Arnhem speak with knowledge and appreciation of the fibre-optic connection through her electorate and into the electorate of Nhulunbuy. I have heard very positive things about that connection. It was done at quite a cost, and logistically was quite difficult. Anyone who has travelled in that beautiful electorate will know there is some mountainous, rocky terrain with many swamps and river crossings. I commend whoever designed and installed that high-speed optic cable all the way to Nhulunbuy. I am told it has had a positive effect on residents and businesses in those remote areas.
The member for Fong Lim argued wireless technology is the way to go. I listened very carefully to what he had to say; however, looking at that optic-fibre connection convinced me. From what the member for Arnhem said, it is the way to go. Julia Gillard and the Labor government are on track with that promise. The people of Australia will make that very important decision in a week or so.
Just to recap, Labor has committed to build a National Broadband Network to deliver affordable high-speed broadband services to all Australians, no matter where they live, benefiting Territorians in particular. In stark contrast, a Tony Abbott-led Coalition would shut down the National Broadband Network and rely on outdated technology, sending the Territory, and Australia, into the digital dark ages. He does not understand how critical broadband is to education, health, and business, and the future of the Northern Territory. Under Labor, the NBN will install optic fibre to homes and businesses in urban centres of Darwin, Palmerston, Nhulunbuy, Katherine, Tennant Creek, and Alice Springs. It will also deliver the next generation of wireless and satellite services to the Territory. Speed would be significantly faster than experienced today, and we would be placed to meet the demands of the future. Under the Labor plan, the NBN will deliver 25 000 jobs nationally every year, and be worth $1bn in related investment over eight years.
The Coalition policy stands to put these jobs and investment in Australia’s technological future at risk. The NBN is due to roll out in the Casuarina area in the first half of 2011. The Labor government’s NBN stands to genuinely benefit people in the bush in the Territory, as well as urban centres. For the Territory’s education and training system, this stands to benefit our students greatly. It will give our students, teachers, and trainers access to more resources and capacity to deliver quality programs. Tony Abbott would throw the Territory into the Dark Ages.
Madam Speaker, I commend the minister’s statement to the House. We are all interested in the outcome of the forthcoming election. It is going to be very close; nothing can be taken for granted. The Australian people, in their wisdom, will make a decision on who will govern this country for the next three years.
Mr HAMPTON (Information, Communications and Technology Policy): Madam Speaker, I thank all members for their contribution to this statement on the NBN. We are all politicians in this House, and politics will come into the debate; I do not have an issue with that. That is the job we are in; I fully understand that. I genuinely say thank you to all members, although I was bitterly disappointed with the member for Greatorex.
Our last debate on information communication technology was the first for five or six years; it is a subject we do not touch on often. It is an important subject for the Northern Territory. As my colleague, the member for Johnston, said, we are in the midst of a federal election, we are politicians representing different parties; however, we all represent Territorians. If we cannot come into this House where laws are made for Territorians and discuss issues as important as this during a federal election, what is the point of coming here? Obviously, the member for Greatorex is trying to make a judgment on his position in this House.
It is a vitally important issue for the Northern Territory. Watching the news recently you can see the National Broadband Network and the federal opposition’s policy on broadband is important for the country. As the member for Barkly said, NBN is the biggest nation building project in Australia’s history. As parliamentarians representing Territorians, we should be debating the best way forward with a broadband policy and model for the Northern Territory and for Territorians - vitally important.
The national debate has been continuing over the last week. That is politics; people believe they have different or better models than the other. Some of it is based on the principles and values of our political parties. On one hand you have a conservative party which says this will put us into debt; we do not need to spend that much money, we will just spend $5bn or $6bn. On our side of the House, as Labor Party members, we hold values of social justice, of ensuring everyone, no matter where they live, has access to services, particularly employment, education and training. Technology is such an important part of that service delivery in the 21st century. We have different opinions; of course we do, we are representing different parties. To say this is a rehash and we should not be discussing it is wrong; I refute that.
I have been Minister for Information, Communications and Technology Policy over the last two years, and it has been a good portfolio. The Northern Territory has punched above its weight in moving ahead and getting this type of infrastructure and technology. When I first became minister I wanted to see where we were going, being acutely aware of information, communication and technology, and how fast it is moving.
When I was going to school in 1985 no one thought about mobile phones. In 2010, kids have technology with the Internet, Skype and Facebook. We did not think about that in 1985 - only 20 years ago. When I became minister I wanted to ensure the Northern Territory kept up with technology. We have significant challenges living in Alice Springs. I wanted to ensure I could make a difference, particularly for those living in remote communities. Part of that is having the technology and infrastructure in the bush to enable service delivery, and health and education issues can be dealt with properly and with appropriate technology.
My great mentor and predecessor, Peter Toyne, someone well-known to members of this House, was a real techno, an IT visionary. Before entering politics, he worked with the Yuendumu community and the Warlpiri people in the Tanami Desert setting up the Tanami Network. That was visionary stuff by Peter. While his dreams may not have been fulfilled, it made a significant impact on those people’s lives. I recall going to Yuendumu in the late 1980s and meeting Peter. With the Tanami Network, I saw Warlpiri people sit in a room at Yuendumu, 330 km from Alice Springs, talking to university students in America and exchanging ideas in bush medicines and traditional knowledge. That was in the late 1980s and early 1990s. It really opened my eyes and gave me the vision to say, as ICT minister, we need to ensure we get this type of infrastructure and technology into the bush, because that is where the future is. We need to keep that can-do attitude alive and well, as Australians and Territorians, and then look at places such as Utopia.
The member for Barkly said his experiences as a teacher in the Barkly were based around the old HF radio. In 2010, people in Utopia still rely on this form of communication; it is quite remarkable. Utopia has some of the best health outcomes for people living on homelands, yet they rely on the oldest pieces of telecommunication. Imagine what they could do with broadband or fibre or access to wireless - satellite technology to deliver their health services ...
Ms Carney: Do we have a birthday?
Mr HAMPTON: Whose is it?
A member: Burnsie.
Madam SPEAKER: I understand it is the 40th anniversary of his 21st birthday.
Mr HAMPTON: I would like to wish my colleague, the member for Johnston, a very happy birthday. Not sure how old; happy birthday, Burnsie.
Getting back to NBN, the Treasurer gave a good economic case for the NBN, and other members have said for jobs and the economy the NBN is important to the Northern Territory. We need to continue to roll out the NBN if we are going to prosper into the 21st century.
Again for the record, the NBN will deliver over 25 000 jobs nationally every year. In the Territory alone, the NBN and related investments will be more than $1bn over the next eight years. That is a staggering economic argument for the NBN roll-out, particularly in the Northern Territory.
Organisations such as the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the OECD, looked at what short-term cost savings would be needed in the electricity, healthcare, education and transport sectors to justify an investment into a fibre to the home network such as the NBN. They found, on average, a cost saving of between 0.5% and 1.5% in each sector over 10 years resulting from a broadband investment would justify the cost.
With regard to the economic argument, the NBN stacks up and is rolled out as we speak. If there was a change of government, why stop a nation building project such as the NBN while it is being rolled out? In Tasmania the second competitive backhaul line has been completed. During one of my very first meetings with the federal minister, Senator Conroy, in Melbourne, when arguing for the Territory to be short listed to have a second competitive backhaul line, it shocked me that Darwin was the largest regional centre in Australia not to have a second competitive backhaul line. The only line running through the Territory is owned by Telstra, and to find Darwin was the largest capital city or centre in Australia not to have that second competitive line was staggering. There is no better reason to continue to roll out NBN and the second competitive backbone through the Northern Territory.
At Territory Technology Solutions this week I spoke with people involved in business who fully endorse the NBN; why not, it makes good business sense for them as well.
The costs some businesses are paying for their Internet services are remarkable. I strongly believe we cannot afford not to build the NBN, and it has already started. If there was a change of government, why stop something which has already started?
The member for Casuarina mentioned a range of exciting ways the NBN can contribute to better, more efficient and effective conduct in matters in his portfolios; in particular, pastoral and agriculture, and health as well.
In Alice Springs last year I hosted the ministerial council meeting of Communication ministers, where we conducted presentations for all ministers, including the federal minister, Senator Conroy. We presented the case of remote health services, particularly our clinics, and the opportunities medical carts could bring to the Northern Territory - medical carts being technical equipment placed in remote clinics. This would allow the visiting doctor or nurse to communicate directly with a specialist in Sydney, or America. It would help provide specialist advice while the patient is in the remote health clinic, say at Yuendumu, and receive advice through this medical cart from a specialist anywhere in the world.
Part of our presentation was the argument the Northern Territory should get a big slice of the digital region’s cake. We were successful in getting the biggest slice based around our presentation of health and remote clinics, and the need for equipment such as medical carts for our doctors, nurses and patients.
One of my constituents, Roy Chisholm from Napperby Station, travelled overseas on holiday. He was in Argentina, or somewhere in South America, and could monitor his bores on Napperby Station through the Internet. It was quite remarkable. This is where technology is heading. The minister for Primary Industry mentioned it, and the importance of the NBN and this type of technology to his portfolio.
The member for Arnhem described how fast, reliable and affordable broadband is, and a key to achieving a vision for Territory growth towns. Members on this side of the House fully understand that, particularly bush members, as it is always an issue when we visit remote clinics, the shire offices and the stores - what fast, affordable and cheap broadband services would mean for them. It is vitally important to growing our growth towns for them to have opportunities comparable to any other rural town in Australia.
The member for Fong Lim talked about his experiences and, as much as we play politics, I accept the member for Fong Lim does have much experience, particularly at the federal level, and I listened to what he had to say. As politicians we do not always agree on what each person says, and he believes in the opposition’s policy.
The member for Greatorex was very disappointing in such an important debate in this House.
The member for Nelson hit the nail on the head saying our growth towns need broadband; I could not agree more. He also talked about broadband over power lines. That is something we are thinking about - multiple use over existing facilities. It would be difficult in the Top End with lightning strikes during the Wet Season. I do not know how reliable or safe that infrastructure would be; however, we are looking at it. Power lines are a slower way to run things, and most places in the Territory are off the grid. It is something we are considering. We are looking into multiple use over existing facilities. The alternative to using power lines to run broadband is broadband can run the power lines with those smart grids. We are also looking at that.
Touching on the economics of it again, I have talked to several Darwin businesses. We were at Territory Technology Solutions only this week, and to highlight the need for the NBN, one business in Darwin is paying up to $18 000 for a connection which would cost $2000 in Sydney. This demonstrates the need for the NBN. If the opposition win the election they should not pull the plug on it.
Some members touched on the Arnhem fibre-optic project. On becoming the minister, I had the vision. I am proud to see some of this happening, particularly the Arnhem fibre-optic project: 800 km of fibre from Jabiru to Nhulunbuy. It is transforming the lives of many people. As well as fibre in the ground, there are upgrades to exchanges which are vitally important for some island communities.
Madam Speaker, the NBN in the Northern Territory is 21st century. It is similar to the way the pioneers thought of the old telegraph line when the Territory was settled – like the Stuart Highway and, in more contemporary terms, the Adelaide to Darwin railway line. The Territory government can be proud of its position in ensuring 21st century technology and infrastructure is delivered to the Territory. Our kids and grandkids, in 50 years time, will be looking back at the NBN, the second backhaul line through the Northern Territory, as we do regarding the old telegraph line – as visionary; a nation building project. I support it, and am glad this government continues to have the can-do attitude to pursue this important project.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Madam Speaker, I acknowledge the contribution to the Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services of Assistant Commissioner Mark McAdie, who has retired after 35 years of dedicated service. Mark officially retired on 4 August. There is no doubt his knowledge and expertise will be sorely missed in the Northern Territory Police Force and the Australasian policing scene.
Amongst other achievements over his three decades of sworn service, Mark was awarded the Australian Police Medal. He also has a Bachelor Degree in Economics, a Postgraduate Certificate in Applied Management, and a Masters Degree in Public Policy and Administration, all obtained by external studies whilst employed by the Northern Territory Police. Further, he was Chairman of the Trustees of the Police Supplementary Benefit Scheme, and President of the Northern Territory Police Legacy. For good measure, he is also an Associate Fellow of the Australian Institute of Management. It is a pretty impressive effort for a bloke who joined the Northern Territory Police Force on 30 June 1975, aged 18.
Mark McAdie commenced duties in the Information Bureau in Darwin and was later transferred to General Duties, Katherine in November 1975. The then Constable McAdie transferred to the Forensic Science section in Darwin in August. His appointment to the Northern Territory Police Force was confirmed in November 1976. Mark also worked at Adelaide River, Batchelor, Garden Point, Groote Eylandt, Daly River, Jabiru, Oenpelli, Pine Creek, Yulara, and Tennant Creek.
Mark was promoted to Constable First Class in 1979, Senior Constable in November 1981, and Sergeant Third Class in March 1982. In September 1984, Mark received a Commissioner’s Commendation for his performance of duties after a Mack truck prime mover was deliberately driven into the crowded bar of the Inland Motel at the base of Uluru. As members might recall, five people were killed and another 16 seriously injured in that tragedy on 18 August 1983.
Mark achieved the rank of Senior Sergeant in May 1986 before being transferred, in July 1986, to OIC Tennant Creek Police Station. Whilst OIC Tennant Creek, he tackled the perennial problem of motor vehicle accidents and put together a significant report, which was circulated throughout the agency before implemented into a road safety scheme.
Mark achieved the rank of Superintendent in September 1992, took on the role of Superintendent of the Police College before relieving as Superintendent Northern Division, Central Region as Superintendent Command Support Operation Command, Superintendent Command Support Officer, and Superintendent Darwin City Division. The then Superintendent McAdie also relieved as Commander for Professional Responsibility from December 1997 to May 1998, before being promoted full-time to Commander Darwin Region.
By June 2002, he had been promoted to the rank of Assistant Commissioner Human Resource Services Command. He received the Australian Police Medal in the 2006 Queen’s Birthday Honours List.
Assistant Commissioner McAdie has also relieved as Deputy Commissioner on numerous occasions since 2002. In May 2007, Mark was transferred to Assistant Commissioner Crime and Support Portfolio, the position he maintained until his retirement.
Mark McAdie gave 35 years of meritorious service. There is no doubt Mark made a significant contribution to the development of the Northern Territory Police Force. On behalf of the Northern Territory government, I extend my thanks to Mark for his more than three decades of service to our police force and Territorians.
As Police minister, I personally have worked closely with Mark on many occasions. He was always highly professional, a real problem solver, a team player and very dedicated to, and proud of, our Northern Territory Police Force. It is a uniform Mark wore with genuine pride. Whilst Mark’s knowledge and experience will be sadly missed, I wish him all the best as he embarks on the next phase of his life.
I would also like to speak about the recent retirement of Senior Constable Peter Russell. Peter retired from the Police Marine and Fisheries Enforcement Unit on 1 July, following 28 years of sworn service. He transferred to the Marine and Fisheries unit after six years as a Fisheries Officer in the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries. Peter set high personal standards, and his career was marked by consistently high levels of integrity. This is evidenced by the respect in which he is held by all sectors of the fishing fraternity, who saw him as an officer who showed no favouritism in the execution of his duties. His service included a number of notable milestones. He took part in a significant number of long-range land and sea patrols in remote and inhospitable environments around the full length of the Territory coast. These patrols were often undertaken without support in all weather and sea conditions, primarily in a very small craft.
This is an amazing statistic. It is estimated in Peter’s 28 years of sworn service he was involved in more than 1900 days in the field, which equates to almost nine-and-a-half years of bush and maritime patrols. Peter also played a key role in advising Northern Territory government agencies in the framing of policies and legislation to protect Territory fisheries. He frequently represented the Territory police on management, advisory and legislative review communities, consistently performing duties well above his rank. In fact, in 2008 he was seconded to the Department of Justice to provide advice on issues surrounding the Blue Mud Bay High Court case. He went on to work on a review of the NT Fisheries Act following the High Court’s decision in that case.
In addition to his Fisheries work, Peter also relieved at the then Criminal Investigation Unit between 1988 and 1989, working on several high-profile cases. One of these was the so-called Stone Country murders, which saw five people killed and the perpetrators receiving a life sentence. Peter also played a role as a principal planner in the development of the Indigenous Community Marine Rangers Program. This included dedicating a significant amount of his own time working with Fisheries and Charles Darwin University in the development of accredited training for the ranger program. I am told the program has received critical national acclaim.
I also touch on Peter’s contribution to the Marine and Fisheries Enforcement Unit investigations and prosecutions. He played an important role in the development of improved evidence gathering and presentation methodologies for compliance and enforcement matters. This led to a notable increase in prosecution rates, and set a standard for the unit’s compliance and enforcement. From 2002 until his retirement, Peter had responsibility as Primary Police Prosecutor for Marine and Fisheries matters. In that time, prosecutions resulted in the forfeiture to the Crown of two large barramundi vessels, 10 smaller mud crab fishing boats, four large barramundi fishing tenders, 3 km of gill netting, and three vehicles.
During his 28 years of service Peter received several commendations for meritorious service. These included a Commissioner’s unit commendation to the Marine and Fisheries Enforcement Unit for their role in the hunt for Brett Mann. Brett disappeared in the flooded Finniss River whilst quad biking with his mates. The search extended from 22 December 2003 to 5 January 2004. The unit’s commendation for its work under trying circumstances pretty well sums up Peter’s approach to the job. It read:
Peter leaves the service with a legacy of which he can be justly proud. He committed the best part of his adult life to the protection of life on our waters, as well as the protection of our all-important marine stocks. I trust his retirement will be as fulfilling as his career.
Madam Speaker, our Territory Police Force has seen two very significant people retire recently, Mark McAdie and Peter Russell. I wish both of them all the best in their retirement.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I sometimes wonder if the Chief Minister is making these speeches just to make me feel old. I remember when I first met Sergeant Third Class Mark McAdie, and Peter Russell, as well. I too offer my best wishes to both gentlemen and thank them for the communication and contact I had when in the police force, particularly Mark McAdie. He was in the training college when I first met him. I was one very bewildered young police cadet, and it was the guidance of people like Mark McAdie, Jock McPherson, and others in the college which set me on the road of learning the lessons of life.
I will speak on Little Mindil. Until now I have deliberately remained fairly silent on the issue of Little Mindil, having a ‘wait and see’ attitude. When I heard Little Mindil was to be redeveloped, but largely remain open space, that was not entirely inconsistent with CLP policy prior to the 2005 election where the idea was to keep it public open space. Moreover, Little Mindil was, until recently, a fairly unremarkable piece of space - a vacant lot; a piece of Crown Land with coffee bush growing on the cliff face. I considered the improvements allowed by the Northern Territory government, under arrangements with the casino, would be an improvement.
I congratulate the casino on the work they have done in the area. However, my concern in relation to this matter is the enlarging chasm between that which was promised and what is occurring.
Whilst I am aware the property will remain the possession of the Northern Territory government, the leasing arrangements will ultimately see the transfer of title freehold to the casino. The reason I am concerned is there were many reassuring words uttered by the government in relation to the Little Mindil site. I point out the media release from 9 October 2006 from the then Minister for Planning and Lands, titled: Little Mindil Myths Dispelled - Public Space and Rehabilitation Focus. In that media release there is an attachment, Madam Speaker, and I seek leave to table the attachment.
Leave granted.
Mr ELFERINK: This shows the Little Mindil site in the form of an aerial photograph with a zone marked ‘Extent of Development’ and other zones marked ‘Public Access’ and ‘Rehabilitation of Escarpment’.
I was led to believe by that and other media releases, including the one of 9 June 2008, certain things were going to be guaranteed under the arrangements, such as the public access, the escarpment would be rehabilitated - nothing more. In fact, any person looking at this aerial photograph would see the extent of the development suggests the area of Little Mindil to be dealt with was not going to include the escarpment beyond straightforward rehabilitation.
I draw members’ attention to the Northern Territory government’s Land Information System which shows the same area. Whilst the media release from the Minister for Planning and Lands - at that time the member for Karama - shows areas for rehabilitation, those areas are part of the land to be transferred freehold ultimately to the casino, which includes the top of the escarpment directly opposite the old heritage site.
I have spoken to several people who tried to visit the area during the time of the Darwin Cup Ball. They were met by security guards who said they were not allowed to approach the fence overlooking the site. Moreover, they were allowed to listen to the music as long as they did not go to the fence. It has been suggested it was a matter of public safety. If that was true the casino would post a security guard there at all times, particularly in the evening.
No, the casino has extended to that area a proprietorial right over the land which means they see the land as their own. Rumour has it they did not even want that; it was forced upon them by government. That is an issue for another day.
I am concerned that proprietorial right already being exerted by the casino will be exerted in a much more aggressive fashion once title ultimately transfers to the casino in about eight years time.
That area is sufficiently large to allow for construction of a building and, once the title is transferred to the casino, who knows what it will build on that site. I point out to members the Land Information System has the top of the escarpment zoned as tourist/commercial, which means it will ultimately be able to be built on.
I also note from the Land Information System another promise made by government will not be supportable under this title arrangement. That is because the primary block, the area of Little Mindil below the escarpment which will be transferred to the casino, will go to lower than the high water mark of the beach. The promise the beach can be constantly accessed cannot be maintained by this government once title is transferred.
Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table this printout from the NT Land Information System for the information of honourable members.
Leave granted.
Mr ELFERINK: It is clear to see the boundary of the block extends beyond the height of the high water mark, which means if the tide is in and the casino wishes to exert its proprietorial right over the block, people will not be able to traverse Mindil Beach over Little Mindil without having to go for a swim, or get permission from the future owners of this block.
I obtained briefings from the casino relating to its intention for the site, and I thank casino management for that. The goodwill and honour demonstrated by SKYCITY management relating to intentions cannot be guaranteed into the future. Once title is transferred to the casino, whoever owns the casino – and it does not have to even be the current owner - may exert its proprietorial rights in a more aggressive way than the proprietoral rights we saw exerted recently.
All manner of assurances were given by this government …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, your time has expired.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, Minyerri is about 270 km south-east of Katherine by road, and a great community in the Barkly electorate. Like a number of remote schools, Minyerri did not have a covered learning area for school and sporting activities. Through the BER, Minyerri School secured $850 000 in funding to address this as a matter of priority. The school had also secured $1.1m in Closing the Gap funding to deliver an early learning centre.
To deliver the project efficiently for the most benefit to the school and the community, Doyle Contracting was awarded the two components as a package of works. I am pleased to report Minyerri now has a 544 m2 covered outdoor learning area including an assembly area, a raised stage, fold-down basketball backboards, rebound grand slam court surface, and storage. The new early learning centre includes a large activity room, landscaped play area, kitchenette, ablution facilities, an office, and storage areas. Importantly, the early learning centre has the capacity to meet future growth needs of the community.
I had the pleasure of attending the official opening of the new centre at Minyerri School last month, and what a great event. I was greeted at the school gate by a delegation of students and the deputy chair of the school council. I was escorted to an assembly to witness and be part of performances by students, speeches, and a very moving occasion where the school community rose to sing the National Anthem. I was also taken on a tour of the school, and in each of the classrooms and learning areas, both outdoor and indoor, the intricacies of their school program was explained to me with great pride.
The irony for me when I was invited to speak at the opening was not far to my right were the silver bullets of the existing Minyerri School - the original school at Hodgson Downs. I commented on how far we had come since the days of silver bullets which were delivered to pastoral property schools as their school infrastructure, and to witness today this incredible, high-tech, comfortable and supportive school environment. It was great to talk with the principal, Mr Neil Gibson, who has devoted over 20 years of his life and career to the community of Minyerri. It was great to talk about what works in delivering improved educational outcomes.
I was pleased to learn not only did a high standard of educational excellence exist at Minyerri School, but also the links to secondary education and the encouragement and mentoring of Minyerri students to travel away from home and attend boarding schools in the Northern Territory and interstate. It was also pleasing to hear of the Minyerri School links with southern tertiary institutions – the visiting teacher education and general students who came from southern universities.
I was pleased to host a group of Year 6 and Year 7 Minyerri students at Parliament House this week. They certainly enjoyed their education outreach program delivered by the Legislative Assembly, and their visit to the fifth floor. We were able to stand on the verandah on the fifth floor, gaze onto Darwin Harbour and talk about shipping, live cattle export, and Darwin as the capital city and the gateway to Asia. The students enjoyed their time which capitalised on not only the knowledge they are learning at school, but also their dreams as future Territorians.
Bottom line, Madam Speaker: we must acknowledge the improved infrastructure which supported better program delivery at Minyerri School. The only possible way that infrastructure was delivered was through the BER. This story is just one of many across the Territory. I hope, no matter what happens on 21 August, the federal government will continue to deliver this fabulous BER program throughout the Northern Territory.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Madam Speaker, I begin by acknowledging Seniors Month. Seniors Month is a great opportunity to recognise the valued contribution seniors make to the Territory. Senior Territorians are valued members of our community, playing an important role in anchoring young generations to the cultural heritage. Our whole community is richer for the wisdom and experience offered by our seniors. This government appreciates the role seniors have in the community and the valuable contribution they make to our lives.
This is why, in celebrating Seniors Month, we have awarded over $46 000 in grants to help fund a raft of events across the NT. Some of these grants include $1000 to National Seniors in Alice Springs to help fund a golf coaching and practice day for seniors. I thank Jan Dowson for her efforts in organising these events. Also, Katherine South Primary School and Sharni Wilson received almost $600 to host a reading theatre lunch with presentations of poems and stories. The NT Stolen Generation Aboriginal Corporation in Darwin received $500 to host songs and stories about the Stolen Generations, followed by lunch. A special thank you to Rosie Baird for organising such an important event.
Earlier this month, renowned culinary genius, Maggie Beer, as Senior Australian of the Year, joined over 100 guests in Parliament House; it was great to have her here. Many of you may have seen Maggie in a role as co-host of the ABC program, The Cook and the Chef. Maggie is a culinary icon whose passion for food brings joy to many Australians. Senior Territorians in Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Mataranka, Katherine, Adelaide River and Palmerston also had the opportunity to catch up with Maggie during her visit. I had the great pleasure of handing over one of the first early season mangoes to Maggie. I can only imagine what dish she made with that mango - perhaps a mango sorbet.
I also mention some of the other events which make Seniors Month not only enjoyable but informative and rewarding as well. Centrelink is hosting a raft of seminars to assist seniors with financial matters. The NT Council of the Ageing is hosting a variety of events to promote healthy ageing and exercise for seniors. Local councils are holding information seminars to help seniors stay up-to-date with the latest computer technologies. In fact, Darwin City Council is having an event to connect seniors with the popular social networking site Facebook. Those who do not know what Facebook is should go along.
I acknowledge everyone who is working hard behind the scenes to make Seniors Month such a success. To those people, I say thank you for all your efforts. Thank you to Rhonda Picard, Valerie Dreon and Brian Hilder from Senior Citizens Inc for working especially hard in bringing events, not only to the Top End, but to Central Australia as well. Robyn Lesley, the new Chief Executive of COTA, and Brian Hilder have done a great job. They put in an exceptional amount of effort promoting a number of events. That includes the motorcycle adventure event on Saturday which will provide great excitement. I will be attending the event, which has also been helped by the Ulysses Club bikers.
I also thank the good people at Centrelink for hosting many forums across the NT. I thank John Hughes, the CEO at Coomalie Shire Council, also Gary Cleary at the Barkly Shire Council, Chris Hill from the Victoria Daly Council at Nauiyu community, and many others who made a valuable contribution to Seniors Month across the Territory.
The Council of the Ageing has worked tirelessly to bring a whole range of events to fruition. Its traditional bush tucker feast was a real hit, with seniors enjoying some great traditional Australian tucker. The National Seniors Race Day promises to be a full day of exciting events, great food and high fashion.
Annette Roberts and the Royal Lifesaving Society will be hosting a Grey Medallions event in which seniors can learn about water safety, resuscitation, aquatic exercises and survival skills. Worth special mention is the toy making class hosted by Ivan Walsh and the Pensioners’ Workshop Association Incorporated in which seniors were able to get together and help make toys for disadvantaged children. This shows what a great bunch of people we have in the Territory and what great Territory spirit.
All round the Territory local clubs, councils and businesses are taking part in recognising the wonderful contribution seniors make to the Territory and, when it comes to senior Territorians, we do listen. We have appointed a Senior Territorians Advisory Council to advise on seniors’ issues and government programs and policies. The council is made up of people from all walks of life across the Territory. I especially thank Janet Durling and all the good people from the STAC for the depth of detail provided to me in the recent STAC working plan. I cannot say enough about this invaluable group in helping government make decisions.
We continue to work hard to keep seniors in the Territory and our concession scheme is the most generous in the nation. We provide generous subsidies for electricity, water, sewerage, spectacles, council rates and garbage rates. Seniors can also access interstate and overseas travel subsidies with half a standard airfare every two years or one full airfare every four years. We have recently introduced free bus travel for seniors, free driver’s licence and increased motor vehicle registration concessions.
To help senior Territorians, we have removed the 50% cap on the concession for power accounts, and also a stamp duty concession is being introduced for seniors of up to $8500 off the stamp duty payable for members downsizing their properties. We are offering a generous scheme because we want our senior Territorians to stay longer in the Territory as we are better off for it.
We will continue to deliver for senior Territorians. I encourage everyone to participate in celebrating Seniors Month at one of the many events which appear in the Seniors Month calendar. Anyone requiring a copy of the calendar can find it on the website www.lifestyle.nt.gov.au or contact my office. I hope everyone enjoys Seniors Month.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Member for Goyder
Member for Goyder
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have given leave to the member for Goyder to make a personal explanation. I remind members this is not a debate, and members should listen with courtesy.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, yesterday, the minister for Environment claimed I said on yesterday’s morning radio:
- We would respect the rights of traditional owners and then tell them what to do.
The statement is completely incorrect and untrue and it is disappointing the minister is gilding the lily. What I said on yesterday’s morning radio is as follows - listen carefully, minister:
- … what we would like to see is the rights of traditional owners respected and if they want to pursue a particular path then obviously we would respect that.
But we would like to see, we would like to encourage them to continue their discussions with the company through the Northern Land Council.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
PETITION
Application to Establish Baniyala School
Application to Establish Baniyala School
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 47 petitioners relating to the application by the Northern Territory Christian Schools Association to establish a non-government school in Baniyala. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- To the honourable the Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory:
We the undersigned respectfully showeth our partners, the Northern Territory Christian Schools Association, submitted an application to the Northern Territory Department of Education for the establishment of a non-government school in Baniyala. The application was submitted on 27 August 2009. We have not received a reply.
- On 1 June 2010 we wrote to the minister for Education to ask what was happening with our application. We have not received a reply. We are a community with a Christian faith and are determined to establish a school with a Christian focus in which we can shape our children’s education to meet the special challenges and opportunities they will face. Our partners, the Northern Territory Christian Schools Association, will deliver the preschool, primary and secondary school we require. They will also provide remedial adult education and vocational education for our community.
- Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Northern Territory Department of Education approves our application by 30 September 2010 so that our partners, the Northern Territory Christian Schools Association are ready to take over the operation of our school on 1 January 2011.
And your petitioners, as is duty bound, will ever pray.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Behaviour in the House
Behaviour in the House
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, before calling on government business, I would like to make a few comments.
I am very concerned our parliament is being brought into disrepute because of poor behaviour. I urge all members to remember they are representing the people of the Northern Territory, and they certainly deserve better.
I remind you standing orders are, in fact, for all members.
I was also very concerned, when listening to the Channel 9 coverage of yesterday’s Question Time, it was reported an opposition member was recorded using profane language, and the member’s voice was heard with a bleep over the profanity used. I am not certain who the member concerned was, however, I ask whoever the member was to withdraw the comment and apologise to the House. I remind all members profane language is never parliamentary and will result in immediate withdrawal from the Chamber.
It is very disappointing no member will admit to having said that.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Take Two Bills Together
Take Two Bills Together
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent bills titled Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill 2010 (Serial 118) and Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 (Serial 119):
- (a) being presented and read a first time together and one motion being put in regard to, respectively, the second readings, the committee’s report stage, and the third readings of the bills together; and
(b) the consideration of the bills separately in the Committee of the Whole.
Mr WOOD: I am always concerned about bills coming through on urgency ...
Ms Lawrie: It is not urgency.
Mr WOOD: It is not urgency?
Ms Lawrie: No, it is cognate. They are consequential amendments dealing with all the changes to oaths, affirmations and declarations.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, the first point of clarification, this is not a motion of urgency; this is a motion of cognate. The reason we are dealing with the bills together is simply because we are proposing, through the legislation in the bills, to change the process currently before the court of oaths, affidavits and declarations - changing it from the existing wording and language to simple words: ‘I promise to tell the truth to this court’.
These changes are proposed and arise out of two separate reports of the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee. The first report was in 1983, the second report a year ago. As Attorney-General, I have taken the advice of the NT Law Reform Committee. It was prompted by a request by the Chief Justice, Brian Martin, to simplify the language for people appearing before court, particularly those people who come from a non-English-speaking background - and this is particularly pertinent to Indigenous members of the Territory who appear before the court.
I am advised by practitioners in the court the current complex ‘Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?’ language is very difficult to translate. Two different reports from the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee have said simplify the language to: ‘I promise to tell the truth to this court’; basically, to make what sounds like a relatively simple change.
Obviously, debate in the next sittings will determine whether people want to see that change. This is simply an introduction and an opportunity for me, as Attorney-General, to propose the bills. It triggers changes across a raft of different laws, which is why we are proposing to do it as cognate bills.
Motion agreed to.
OATHS, AFFIDAVITS AND DECLARATIONS BILL
(Serial 118)
OATHS, AFFIDAVITS AND DECLARATIONS (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 119)
(Serial 118)
OATHS, AFFIDAVITS AND DECLARATIONS (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 119)
Bills presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a second time.
The purpose of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill is to amend the Oaths Act by repealing it and replacing it with a new act, the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill 2010.
Currently, section 22 of the Oaths Act provides that unless otherwise requested, and whether in judicial proceedings or otherwise, an oath is to be administered and taken in the following manner:
the person taking the oath shall, standing up, hold a copy of the Bible or New Testament or Old Testament in his hand; and
Section 8 of the act provides any person may make an affirmation in lieu of taking any oath. Section 9 provides every affirmation shall commence with the words: ‘I, X, do solemnly, sincerely and truly affirm’, and then shall proceed in the same words as the oath as required or permitted under the law.
In accordance with section 9 and Schedule 7 of the Oaths Act, a person making an affirmation before a court shall be addressed by an officer with: ‘Do you solemnly, sincerely and truly affirm and declare’, etcetera, and shall then speak the words: ‘I do’, or otherwise signify agreement.
The issue of the language used for the taking of oaths and affirmations in court has been considered twice by the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee. In 1983, the Law Reform Committee considered whether there was a need to simplify the language used by the court in seeking to ensure a witness understands they must tell the truth. The majority of members of the Law Reform Committee recommended the current provisions concerning the taking of an oath be abolished and replaced by a standard simpler form of affirmation. The 1983 report was not acted upon in respect of that issue.
In September 2007, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, Hon Brian Martin, wrote to the then Attorney-General, Mr Syd Stirling, about this issue. Chief Justice Martin wrote that the judges of the Supreme Court were of the view formal language of the current oath and affirmation were ‘singularly inappropriate’ for many witnesses of all ethnic backgrounds. In his letter, the Chief Justice also noted there were difficulties in converting this formal language into appropriate Aboriginal languages and many Aboriginal witnesses for whom English was not their first language had difficulty understanding the formal concepts when translated.
The judges of the Supreme Court at that time were all in favour of amending the Oaths Act to enable the adoption of simple language more likely to be understood by witnesses. The Chief Justice had canvassed magistrates, the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency, the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission and the Director of Public Prosecutions. There was general agreement the current wording of the oath and affirmation be replaced by a simple promise to tell the truth.
In 2008, the Law Reform Committee was asked to investigate the implementation of the proposal made in the 1983 report and to consider the letter of the Chief Justice. The Law Reform Committee reported the 1983 report considered the decline in Christian religious belief and the fact the number of people of other religions was increasing. However, the Law Reform Committee noted that in 2008 it was more accurate to state a belief in divine sanction, or at least the more fearsome of them - for example, eternal damnation and punishment - had declined. As such, the Law Reform Committee considered whether there was ‘any reason to retain a specifically religious oath, rather than using the same form of words for all witnesses, by affirmation in which the witness simply promises to tell the truth’.
The Law Reform Committee concluded any affirmation should be in simple terms immediately understandable by a witness. The Law Reform Committee considered various alternatives and concluded the most appropriate form to be: ‘I promise to tell the truth to this court’. Thus, the Law Reform Committee recommended the witness be asked: ‘Do you promise to tell the truth to this court?’ In response, the witness would indicate affirmation.
The Law Reform Committee recommended all witnesses should be asked the same question and no other form of oath need be retained. In this case, there would be no need to ask any witness if they preferred some other form of words to be used. It was agreed there is no need for witnesses to be treated differently based on their religious beliefs or lack thereof. Therefore, the same question should be asked of all witnesses. This approach reflects the one suggested by the Chief Justice, and is still supported by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. The Law Reform Committee recommendations also have the support of the former Chief Magistrate, Ms Jenny Blokland and former Northern Territory magistrate, Ms Melanie Little.
The Law Reform Committee also noted that since 1983, the trend towards simplicity of language has continued and been accelerated in other jurisdictions. I thank members of the NT Law Reform Committee for their time and consideration of the issues. This government has agreed to implement the 2008 recommendations of the Law Reform Committee through amending the Oaths Act.
Although the Law Reform Committee focused on court proceedings, it became apparent during drafting of the amendments, to give effect to their recommendations, the scope needed to be widened to affidavits and other situations where a person may be required to take an oath; for example, applications for warrants or complaints made on oath, an oath of an interpreter, or an oath of a juror or office holder.
In the Oaths Act, the oath required for the taking of an affidavit or other situations is not distinguished from the taking of an oath from a witness in court. It appears from the Law Reform Committee’s report the two justifications for changing arrangements for witnesses in court are to simplify the process and remove the need to distinguish between people based on their religious beliefs or lack thereof.
These same considerations apply in relation to affidavit evidence or other situations, including oaths of allegiance or office. This is despite the Law Reform Committee stating oaths of allegiance should not be changed because they are more a matter of formality rather than simplicity.
A further issue was subsequently raised. It was suggested the oath be administered by the presiding judge or magistrate, as happens in Timor-Leste, rather than by a court officer. There was general support for this in the context of courts. It became apparent during drafting of amendments that Parts II, III and V, and most of Part VI of the act would need to be repealed and replaced. On advice from the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, given this would see most of the act being repealed and replaced, it seemed more appropriate to draft an entire new act rather than amend the existing one. This is the bill before this house, a new Oaths, Affidavits and Statutory Declarations Bill 2010.
The bill implements the recommendations of the Law Reform Committee providing a new oath for witnesses, being a promise to tell the truth to the court. The bill provides a comprehensive regime, although it does allow for other acts to make different provision:
replacing the current oath/affirmation with a promise to tell the truth, not only as recommended by the Law Reform Committee for witnesses in court, but in all situations requiring an oath;
for who can administer an oath, in what circumstances. In particular, the new oath/promise will be administered by the presiding judicial officer in court. For tribunals, the current situations for the majority of tribunals will become the norm, whereby any sitting member from a tribunal can administer an oath; and
how the oath should be administered.
The bill also allows for alternative forms of administration of the new promise. If the person taking the oath wants to take the oath in another form - for example, taking a religious oath - or have it administered in another way, they can do so if the person administering it is satisfied they understand the consequences of taking an oath and the person is taking it honestly and in good faith, intending to be bound by it.
It is noted the Law Reform Committee considered there was a slight risk a witness, when asked if they would tell the truth, may ask the philosophical question: what is the truth? The Law Reform Committee stated in such rare cases the court could use its discretion to determine if such a response was a genuine objection to the words and, if so, formulate a different procedure.
The bill now provides some basic provisions as to how affidavits are to be made. These are based on section 9 of the Western Australian Oaths, Affidavits and Statutory Declarations Act 2005 and existing NT court rules. Other provisions in the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill generally replicate the balance of the current provisions in the Oaths Act.
The Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 amends various acts and subordinate legislation consequent on the reform of the wording of the oath. A number of the consequential amendments:
provide for a person/body to require a person appearing before it to give evidence on oath. This links with the definition of a ‘tribunal’ in the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill 2010 being an individual or body, other than a court, authorised by law or consent of the parties to take evidence, or otherwise gather information, on oath;
make consequential changes to ensure uniformity of terminology.
I thank the Chief Justice for bringing the judges concerns about the form of the oaths to government’s attention. I thank the Law Reform Committee for their recommendations.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bills to honourable members, and I table a copy of the explanatory statements.
Debate adjourned.
JUSTICE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (COMMITTALS REFORM) BILL
(Serial 106)
(Serial 106)
Continued from 9 June 2010.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, the opposition supports this bill, the contents of which are straightforward, although someone reading it may think it is complicated. There are areas of moderate complexity, however this will make our justice system better; it will improve matters for witnesses and victims. Some of these changes are overdue and we welcome them.
The intention is to amend the Justices Act and the Youth Justice Act, and there are additional amendments in relation to that. The objective is to streamline the way committal proceedings are conducted. When the Attorney-General indicated the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee would work on this I indicated my support. My long-standing view is anything which makes it better for witnesses, and victims in particular, can only be a good thing.
A high level of care is necessary when changing this type of legislation and the way proceedings in our courts are undertaken. I had minor difficulties with some points and spoke with lawyers whose views I trust - they are much more experienced in criminal law than me and know much more. I identified things I thought were mildly problematic; they assured me they were comfortable with them so I took the view: far be it for me to ride solo on issues which provide me discomfort; I am guided by them. I will not go through the issues for that reason.
The bill removes the need for witnesses to attend and give evidence at preliminary examinations; it restricts cross-examination by the defendant under situations where leave is granted by the court and having regard to whether it is agreed to by the prosecution, and whether it is in the interests of justice; they incorporate minor drafting and grammatical errors, which is pleasing. I pay a special and heartfelt tribute to those responsible for getting rid of the ‘z’ – this is not the first time I have raised this. I look forward to further amendments which replace ‘z’ in our legislation with ‘s’. I hope the momentum continues.
The Attorney-General’s second reading speech referred to the purpose of the bill; to streamline committal proceedings to avoid situations where witnesses attend court unnecessarily. The main objectives of the bill were to relieve stress on witnesses associated with giving evidence at committal and trial, and to ensure committals are run more efficiently. Anyone involved with courts of the Northern Territory will know committals have presented a range of problems, and the Attorney-General touched on some in her second reading speech. They include the fact it is not uncommon for witnesses to turn up to court and find they are not required; problems police and others have finding witnesses, serving summonses and arranging travel, particularly in our bush communities. I have firsthand knowledge of the difficulties DPP have experienced over the years and anything which makes that better is good.
The Territory taxpayer bears the burden of the additional costs created by some of the problems. Witnesses and victims are put through the stress of attending, thinking they will have to give evidence. Often when they turn up they find they are not required, or not required today, come back tomorrow.
Although it has changed as a result of legislation a year or so ago, traditionally it was always a nightmare for children when giving evidence. Court starts at 10 am. The support person would take the child, usually with a parent, to court and they would sit in a room which was less than satisfactory. There was paper for the child to draw on, and some toys. Most people, even those without children, know they are invariably at their best early to mid-morning. If a child is waiting all day and finally gets on at 3 pm or 3.30 pm, they are not going to be at their best. That was the experience described to me. Those improvements need to be made, and the needs of witnesses and victims need to be carefully, thoughtfully considered by decision-makers. The objective is for them to be at their best when giving evidence.
We heard, in the preceding bill introduced by the Attorney-General, the oath has been changed. Having read the bills and heard what the Attorney-General said, my view is it is a good thing. The reality is 80% to 90% of the traffic through our courts is Aboriginal people. They find - as everyone finds except the lawyers - proceedings to be very difficult. No wonder we have such an appalling conviction rate. No wonder it is difficult for juries to produce findings of guilt. An average person would be confused by legal proceedings. If we can make the oath better for witnesses - whether they are Aboriginal witnesses or not, but noting the reality in the Territory - that can only be a good thing.
The Attorney-General, in her second reading speech, specifically referred to the trauma for victims. I am not the only one who has talked about that in this House, not only in the context of the old crimes compensation scheme, other contexts as well. Anyone with a passing interest in courts in the Territory will know the trauma for many victims, particularly in assaults, sexual assaults, and so on.
Some of the problems have been identified by the Attorney-General and are sought to be remedied by the bill. The proposals were recommended by the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee, so that is persuasive itself. Barbara Bradshaw from the Law Society, and I, have exchanged e-mails. The Law Society is supportive of it; which is also persuasive, so on behalf of my colleagues I support this bill. Time will tell whether we need to make amendments.
Madam Speaker, with legislation such as this it is probable, at some point, changes will need to be made and, as we see in a bill brought on urgency to be debated next Thursday, problems no one sees can arise years later. I suspect this is one of them. However, there is nothing in particular to worry us. It is the nature of the courts, particular proceedings, and the magistrates and judges who work in our court system. With that I will conclude.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition for their support for the change to committals. This is very significant reform and I am not underestimating the arguments for and against reforming committals. That is why I chose to ask the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee to look at this matter.
The matter was raised by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for consideration. Clearly, you always have to ensure, when looking at changes to court proceedings, you do so with eyes wide open and understand the pros and cons.
Sometimes changes to committals such as the reforms before us today are considered to be a disadvantage to defendants. Northern Territory Legal Aid, NAAJAS, and others have put their concerns on the record. As Attorney-General, I take on board the matters raised; equally I have been persuaded by the recommendations of the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee that, on balance, this is a fair procedural process to follow. We are not going to the extent some other jurisdictions have. We are providing for exercise of some discretion in the system, for checks and balances, to ensure those who want to raise matters on behalf of defendants do so at the lower court.
What drove this change was the recognition there is much stress on witnesses and many inefficiencies in the lower court. People are going through a trial at the lower court before going to a full trial at the higher court - the Supreme Court. We see clear duplication and stress on witnesses. The member for Araluen articulated well some of the issues, particularly matters with juvenile witnesses. Government, and the Attorney-General of the day, should turn their attention to the stress which impacts upon our vulnerable witnesses, our innocents, who have to appear.
Currently, paper, oral, or part oral/part paper committals are permitted and generally committals proceed as part oral/part written. This bill amends the Justices Act and the Youth Justice Act to provide for committals to proceed as paper or hand-up committals, with a full oral committal only conducted where justified. That is where the check and balance comes in - there is still an ability to trigger a full oral committal in circumstances where the parties can argue it is justified. In that respect, we have erred in trying to capture what is a fair and streamlined process, removing stress from witnesses; however, giving a fair opportunity for people to argue for a full oral committal in the lower court.
Where a youth and an adult are charged with offences arising from the same course of conduct, committal proceedings for both may be heard together. There has been a flaw in the system and they could not be heard together -again duplication and additional stress on witnesses.
We understand this is a significant reform. We will provide fact sheets for the public in courts which will explain the new committal process. The information will also be placed on the Department of Justice website. The Department of Justice will conduct briefings and education sessions for legal practitioners in Darwin and Alice Springs over the coming months. We do not propose this legislation commence until 1 March 2011, to give everyone ample time to be fully informed of the changes.
This is modelled on committal proceedings in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and those recently introduced in the Queensland parliament. At the recommendation of the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee, some elements of the Victorian legislation have been adopted. The bill provides where a youth and an adult are charged with offences which arise out of the same incident, their committals can be heard together, which makes sense.
The bill increases the time the prosecution must serve on the defendant the written witness statements they intend to rely on from 14 days to 28 days; again a sensible change. The defendant will not be able to question a prosecution witness unless permission to do so has been sought and granted by a justice. The justice must grant leave if the prosecution has consented to the cross-examination. The bill outlines the reasons the justice can grant permission, and provides a list of issues the justice must consider. That is where we are putting checks and balances into these reforms. The bill also includes a number of amendments which make it clear the Chief Magistrate has power to make rules and practice directions to ensure committals proceed smoothly.
The draft discussion bill was sent to the Chief Justice, Chief Magistrate, Director of Public Prosecutions, Commissioner of Police, Acting Anti-Discrimination Commissioner, Department of Health and Families, Youth Justice Advisory Committee, the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency, the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service, Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission, the Law Society of the Northern Territory, the Criminal Lawyers Association of the NT, and the Northern Territory Bar Association.
The draft discussion bill and an explanatory statement were placed on the Department of Justice website. An advertisement inviting comments from the general public was placed in the NT News over three consecutive Saturdays, and comments were provided by stakeholders including the magistrates, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, NT Legal Aid Commission and NAAJA. No comments were received from the general public. As a result of comments received from stakeholders, amendments were made to the draft discussion bill. We have undertaken significant consultation.
The subcommittee of the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee was asked to consider options. The subcommittee consisted of the Chief Magistrate, the Director of Public Prosecutions, representatives of the Bar Association and the Law Society of the NT, the NT Legal Aid Commission, the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency, Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service and members of the Northern Territory Police. A draft bill was prepared based on the recommendations of this subcommittee, which was distributed far and wide.
We are different to Western Australia and Tasmania, where committals have effectively been abolished. We have taken a path which provides for the checks and balances we have seen operating in other jurisdictions such as New South Wales. We have not abolished committals, as Western Australia and Tasmania have; we are following the fair path capturing the better aspects of South Australia, New South Wales, Victoria and the ACT’s committals reforms.
Objections came from the then Principal Legal Officer at NAAJA and the Principal Legal Officer at CAALAS. They had been members of the Law Reform Committee which looked into this matter. It is the practice of the Law Reform Committee to record dissent of members; there was no dissent by any member of the subcommittee of the Law Reform Committee when it finalised its report.
Both Mr Dooley and Mr Riley have said publicly they consider the reforms will disadvantage Indigenous defendants because there is a possibility of police producing statements from Indigenous witnesses without an interpreter and paraphrasing statements in a way which results in inaccuracies. They have also said the reforms will result in greater expense and delay. During public consultation on the draft bill, NAAJA reiterated these concerns and advised it does not support the reforms.
We have properly considered these concerns. The government is not abolishing committals - I put that first and foremost. Committals have been abolished in Western Australia and Tasmania. We are not taking away the ability of defendants to test the evidence of the prosecution at committal. The government acknowledges well-conducted committals promote efficiencies in the criminal justice process. If, in a particular matter, there are concerns about the accuracy of a witness statement due to language or any other reason, the defence may apply for leave to cross-examine the witness at the preliminary examination. If the prosecution consents, the justice must grant leave.
If the prosecution does not consent, the defence must satisfy the justice there is an issue to which the proposed cross-examination relates, and there is a reason why the evidence of the witness is relevant to that issue. If there are real concerns a witness statement is not accurate, the defence needs to tell the justice why and in what regard.
Regarding the concern of increased cost and delays, government considers there will be a decrease in cost and delay. However, we acknowledge the concerns, which is why I have directed the Department of Justice to conduct a review of the legislation 12 months after its implementation. We are not saying we will crystal-ball gaze the outcome.
We are confident this is the right reform for the Territory. Why are we confident? We have had a body of experts - the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee - go through this with a fine-toothed comb and find a pathway forward. We have not fully abolished committals; we have put checks and balances into the system to allow arguments to occur for an oral committal.
I acknowledge and thank the opposition for their support of this bill. I have placed on the public record concerns have been raised in relation to this reform of committals. I have also put on the public record where we believe those concerns are found to be wanting.
Madam Speaker, I have some committee stage amendments which are required as a consequence of our proposed changes to the Youth Justice Act which is to be debated next Thursday.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 6, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 7:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 41.1 which amends clause 7 of the Justice Legislation Amendment (Committals Reform) Bill 2010. The reason for this amendment is to make a minor correction to the proposed section 105F(1)(a). This provision deals with the requirement for witness statements and exhibits in the prosecutions committal brief. Written statements must comply with certain formal requirements as they do under the current provisions of the Justices Act. These requirements are detailed in proposed sections 105F(2) where the witness is an adult, and proposed section 105F(3), where the witness is a child.
Proposed section 105F(1)(a) should refer to a written statement having to comply with either section 105F(2) or section 105F(3). This amendment corrects the omission of a reference to section 105F(3).
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 20, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 21:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 41.2. These amendments amend clauses 21 and 26. The reason for these amendments is a renumbering required by the introduction in these sittings of the Youth Justice Amendment Bill 2010. That bill will amend the jurisdictional provisions of the Youth Justice Act. A consequence of those amendments will be the creation of a new section 56A in the Youth Justice Act.
The bill before the Assembly today also has proposed section 56A. In order to keep all the jurisdictional provisions together, the proposed section 56A in this bill needs to be renumbered. By this committee stage amendment it will become section 56B of the Youth Justice Act.
Amendments 41.2 to 41.5 also deal with the consequence of this renumbering, ensuring when both this bill and the Youth Justice Amendment Bill 2010 are enacted, the numbering of sections in the Youth Justice Act will be correct.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 22 to 25, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 26:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I have just stated the reasons for the alterations to clause 26.
Amendment agreed to.
New Part 4:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 41.6, regarding new Part 4. The insertion of Part 4 into the Justice Legislation Amendment Committals Reform Bill is a consequential amendment to section 43M of the Criminal Code. Section 43M provides, if a question of fitness to plead arises during a committal proceeding, the committal is to be completed in accordance with the Justices Act. There is a reference to section 106 of the Justices Act which is repealed and not replaced by this bill. This amendment removes that reference.
New Part 4 agreed to.
Long Title:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 41.7. The amendment amends the Long Title of the bill to include reference to the Criminal Code. It is required as a result of the amendment to section 43M of the Criminal Code.
Amendment agreed to.
Long Title, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MOTION
Note Paper - Auditor-General’s Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program June 2010 Report
Note Paper - Auditor-General’s Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program June 2010 Report
Continued from 8 June 2010.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I welcome debate on this very important report by the Auditor-General for the Northern Territory.
I commence by complimenting the Auditor-General for the thorough job he has done in reviewing this program. It is also fair to say this program has been the subject of a number of reviews, a number of which are ongoing. That is appropriate; it is $670m of taxpayers’ money. There has been controversy around this program, which I have acknowledged publicly, and the Auditor-General has referred to in his report.
To some degree, the contents of the report have already been debated in this House. It has been the subject of censure motions, questions, etcetera. I have read the report thoroughly, and I am sure other members have also.
SIHIP is well under way. There are 120 new houses complete or under construction. Subdivision clearing has commenced in Nguiu, Maningrida, Galiwinku and Wadeye. SIHIP, as I said, is a $672m program which will deliver 750 new houses, 230 rebuilds, and 2500 refurbishments by 2013. It is a significant and complex program spanning a number of years. It is not all about building houses; it is about delivering training, employment and real long-term outcomes for Indigenous people. We are exceeding training targets with over 250 local Indigenous people in employment and training.
SIHIP is working in 30 communities, with 67 houses complete and 53 under way and 456 rebuilds and refurbishments completed or under way, which is 106 more than at the June sittings of this parliament. By the end of the year, SIHIP aims to have 150 new dwellings complete, and 1000 rebuilds and refurbishments across the Northern Territory.
The Auditor-General’s report was tabled on 8 June 2010. The objective of his report was to assess the adequacy of the department’s performance management systems to enable it to assess the effectiveness, efficiency, and economy of its operations in relation to SIHIP. The audit also examined the administrative, financial and operational aspects of the program, from commencement in 2007 to date. It highlights factors affecting it since its commencement, and work done to ensure the program remains on track. The program identified the project’s scope, required outcomes, original and revised targets, and timetables. It provided insight into the problems faced since inception, and changes made such as the simplified governance system.
There are two key issues raised in the Auditor-General’s conclusion. First, financing constraints may present an impediment to achieving the SIHIP objectives; and the absence of management systems may not allow effective management and timely delivery of the program. These are major recommendations I have taken to heart, as minister.
I was heartened by the comments of the Auditor-General on progress made in addressing those two issues. I also took on board the comments by the Auditor-General that much more needs to be done; there needs to be further progress on addressing issues of governance and the management systems in particular. I have been engaged with my department on that issue.
Regarding financial constraints, it is acknowledged SIHIP is a challenging program. However, efficiencies achieved through the large-scale delivery of new houses will ensure funds are available for essential infrastructure works within the broader $1.7bn National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing to ensure the 750 new houses, 2500 refurbishments and 230 rebuilds are delivered within the $672m program.
Discussion occurred within the Estimates Committee in relation to Northern Territory government headworks undertaken to support SIHIP, and the roll-out of SIHIP over the 10 years of the project. We make no apology for altering the timing of our capital works in infrastructure expenditure to support SIHIP, particularly in our 20 growth towns, because it is a program worthy of support.
It is the biggest single Indigenous housing infrastructure rolled out in Australia’s history and remote areas of the Northern Territory stand to benefit greatly. We have an expenditure program in our Indigenous essential services, and to the extent we can support SIHIP we have altered the timing to work with SIHIP to avoid duplication at a later stage, or costly expansion of headworks once they are already in the ground. It is very important to take stock of that. We make no apology for expending monies in Indigenous essential services to support SIHIP.
The report acknowledges there was an absence of substantial management systems in the initial stages of the program. Both the Australian and Northern Territory governments have made a concerted effort to improve this aspect of the program, with a number of key management systems and processes established for monitoring the implementation of the program.
The external financial auditor of SIHIP is KPMG, whose role is to review the internal financial and procurement processes undertaken by the alliances. This is a key issue. We have an auditor with a national and international reputation for its ethical approach. It packs a large amount of punch in the accounting and auditing world. KPMG is charged with the audit of this program, and reporting that to the Australian and Northern Territory governments. That is an important element; there is ongoing monitoring by a respected and competent auditing company for this program.
KPMG has extensive experience with alliances across Australia and will continue to provide valuable advice on the progress of the alliances’ internal controls, reviewing all paid invoices and checking all payments are consistent with contractual obligations. That is an important statement following on from what I have said about KPMG.
This is recognised in the Auditor-General’s report, as well as the independent post-review assessment completed in March this year. Independent estimators are contracted to assess alliance estimates prior to government accepting a package. This information is provided to KPMG prior to auditing regular invoice payments, which is also an important aspect.
There has been criticism about the amount of monies paid to various consultants. KPMG is a consultant in this process, and the program managers work with the alliance partners in that context. If someone was to say, ‘We should do away with all the contractors’, you would be doing away with KPMG and their oversight and audit of this very important program.
The Auditor-General also pointed out in his report the administration costs of this program are below 8%, if I recall correctly. We have the level of administration costs right, and companies such as KPMG play a key role.
Ongoing government audits and review of operations of alliances will ensure correct progress payments are made. However, we will continue to be vigilant, as advised and recommended by the Auditor-General. A number of significant changes and achievements have contributed to improve management control systems, both with the alliances and the program as a whole. Both governments remain committed to addressing the findings of the three reviews by strengthening governance around SIHIP and other programs currently funded under the national partnership agreement.
Each package of work has a target number of refurbishments at an average cost of $75 000. However, alliances have been asked to refurbish houses in the community focusing on safety and health first, and then addressing other items. I acknowledge this has been a very controversial aspect of the program. I can understand why a number of Indigenous communities and individuals would be disappointed with the scope of works in the refurbishments, and would be possibly expecting a rebuild to be done on their house.
However, look at the average cost of a rebuild, which is just under $200 000, or the cost of a new house, with the average cost around $450 000, and the average cost of a refurbishment being $75 000 in a community like Santa Teresa where approximately 70 houses are being refurbished. For the amount of money being spent there, by my calculations, instead of 70 houses being refurbished and the kitchen, bathroom and electrical work being brought up to standard, you might only get 12 new houses. That means nearly 60 houses miss out altogether. You are probably looking at about two-and-a-half refurbishments for every rebuilt house.
You have to make those hard decisions. That was the decision taken by the federal government: they would go down the path of refurbishments. I can see the rationale for that. I also understand people’s disappointment in areas where they are not getting a rebuild or a new house.
Arrears in Indigenous housing are large and the genesis of it stretches back over many decades, through many federal and Territory governments. For federal governments which have the resources to improve this situation the demand is extraordinary, and a 10-year $1.7bn project is not going to fix it all. It needs a sustained commitment over many decades to address the issue of arrears in Indigenous housing across the Northern Territory, and it is going to take many billions of dollars to do that. There needs to be a clear understanding of that.
I have also called for the member for Braitling, and Tony Abbott, to clearly spell out their intentions with SIHIP. Are they going to support this $1.7bn project over 10 years if Tony Abbott comes to power? If he does, no doubt he will bring changes in and the Coalition and the CLP have been quite critical of SIHIP. However, are they committed to $1.7bn over 10 years, as a first tranche, and what after that? That is the challenge for both sides of politics, and I am interested to hear what the member for Braitling has to say.
I have read some of his comments in the Centralian Advocate. I am interested in more detail, particularly on the Parliamentary Record rather than a newspaper, of where the Coalition and CLP stand in ongoing funding for Indigenous housing within the Northern Territory. The member for Braitling feels passionately about this. He visited quite a number of communities looking at the houses, talking to people, as I have been doing - although our perceptions could be quite different. We can debate that. These are very important issues to debate, and I welcome the opportunity.
There have been media reports of some shires saying they can deliver refurbishments cheaper than is being delivered through SIHIP. I always look at those claims carefully. I have indicated on the public record I would like to see an evolution of SIHIP where there is more involvement of local organisations with the capacity to undertake refurbishments and employ local people. That is probably the next step for SIHIP; it would be a good direction to take. I have had initial conversations around that, and would like to see us pursue it.
Regarding the new houses and the rebuilds I have inspected - and I have a number of pictures of what I have seen. Here we have a house at Nguiu; a beautiful house. I have no doubt other members have seen these. That is another new house at Alice Springs Larapinta Town Camp.
The houses at Gunbalanya were constructed by Earth Connect and are being used as transitional housing. I visited recently; most houses are tenanted and people will stay there until their own houses are fixed and refurbished.
Several locations have been of interest. It is interesting once the building team start peeling off the wall to see the challenges which meet them in a structural and safety sense with electrical wiring, plumbing, and a whole range of things.
This shows a group at Wadeye taking possession of their house. This is another one at Wadeye. This one is at Milikapiti on the Tiwi Islands - that is the working group. We are hitting our targets in Indigenous employment. This shows a young bloke enjoying his job as a painter; this shows some awards with Territory Alliance.
Everyone recognises Mr Alan McGill; he is passionate about the program. He takes criticism of the program delivered by Territory Alliance very seriously. I have attended a number of meetings with Mr McGill on communities, the most recent at Maningrida. The community was able to feed back to him its concerns, which were mainly operational and community liaison matters. There will always be areas of tension and dialogue which need working through, and Alan McGill is the right man for that. They are proud of what they are doing and become upset when there is negative criticism, particularly unwarranted or ill-informed criticism, of the project.
Indigenous employment and training is a key element to this program. It is a key step towards Indigenous economic development which has not been achieved under most standard contracting arrangements, particularly building. The scope of works is discussed with the community through the Housing Reference Group prior to the government approving the work. Tenants will be expected to maintain their houses, and will be provided support to assist them in understanding their rights and responsibilities as tenants.
I will speak on that. We are talking about, in many cases, people who have had no experience of a formal tenancy; who, in many cases, do not understand their rights and obligations under a tenancy agreement. In many cases, people do not know what is required of them to keep the house and property in the right state. This is going to be a challenge and, like the whole Indigenous housing program itself, is not going to be solved overnight. We need to work with people and explain their rights and responsibilities.
I was direct with the community leaders at Maningrida about this. I said: ‘Along with the houses you are moving into there are some responsibilities about keeping the house and yard clean and tidy. If there is damage to the property, whether it is caused by you or someone else, to some degree you are going to be responsible for the damage to that property. As a government, we have responsibilities to you in repairs and maintenance’. That is where the Remote Rental Framework comes in to play, to ensure there are funds for the repairs and maintenance of houses produced through SIHIP.
We need to explain to people the rent and service charges they are paying are being reinvested into ongoing repairs and maintenance. We need to ensure people understand that, and it needs to be a transparent process. The Northern Territory is responsible for the ongoing repairs and maintenance of community housing assets. Therefore, it is practical to invest in durable works, fixtures and fittings in the first instance. Much has been written about SIHIP; there has been criticism of it. I acknowledge, as the Auditor-General pointed out in his report, much of that criticism has been justified. However, I point people towards the Auditor-General saying he believes the project is on track. He said on page 9:
- SIHIP embarked upon a journey that was intended originally to deliver a significant number of new houses in Indigenous communities, together with refurbishments of a large number of houses in circumstances where fundamental issues such as land tenure had not been resolved.
That has been a complicating factor through the whole journey. As the Productivity Council noted in its 2004 report titled First Home Ownership:
- Even in the best-practice supply chain, it can take several years to bring new land on-stream, to provide the associated infrastructure and to construct new dwellings.
The Auditor-General continued on page 9:
- The logistical complexity to secure land tenure, to liaise with a significant number of Indigenous communities and to engage firms with expertise for the task at hand may not have been appreciated at the time of the signing of the agreement between the Commonwealth and Territory governments and which was intended to improve the state of Indigenous housing in the Territory.
It is a massive job, as the Auditor-General points out. Even in the urban context there would have been enormous logistical challenges, let alone in the remote environment. Land tenure issues can also be difficult to negotiate through. He points to the pros and cons of the alliance model, which has been a point of conjecture. On page 15 the Auditor-General said:
- … where alliancing has been used suggests that the alliance model can avoid disputes, improve non-cost outcomes and lead to projects commencing earlier than do other, more traditional methods. At the same time that experience also suggests that cost estimates at the business case stage of a project tend to be less reliable than is the case for other approaches. Finally, it is clear that effective governance is a critical factor in ensuring successful project outcomes and while alliancing is regarded as a mature approach, there appears to be no agreement on the most effective approach to the governance of projects that use the alliance approach.
The Attorney-General pointed to the issues associated with the alliance modelling. He also talked about the administrative costs, and I will quote from page 33:
- SIHIP management advised that it is now confident that the administrative costs can be reduced to 8% of the program budget …
and:
- The most recent information made available to me indicated that administrative expenses (comprising salaries, consultants; expenses and operational expenses) has declined below the 8% target giving some credence to management’s assertion in this regard.
On page 47 he said:
- As I have suggested elsewhere in this report, SIHIP is an ambitious program and it should deliver most, if not all, that is expected by its stakeholders.
He went on to say:
- While management control systems are still incomplete, work is well advanced towards rectifying this matter.
He then talked about significant increases in the estimated costs. It does pose a risk; I acknowledge that. We need to work very closely with the alliances and the federal government to ensure the program comes in on budget.
He raised the issue of essential infrastructure, and I believe I answered that saying the Northern Territory government supported the accelerated roll-out of infrastructure in communities to further support the headworks of SIHIP’s program.
I welcome debate on the Auditor-General’s report. I understand there is an ongoing Commonwealth Auditor-General’s report. In the June sittings the member for Braitling alleged fraud and was going to the Commonwealth Police. I have heard no more on that; possibly the member for Braitling could update us.
Madam Speaker, this program has been the subject of several reviews. I acknowledge it has had significant problems, however I agree with the Northern Territory Auditor-General: this program, despite its initial difficulties, is on track to deliver most, if not all, of what has been promised.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, SIHIP must be one of the most scrutinised federal and Northern Territory government programs in the history of the Northern Territory, and so it should be. A large amount of money has been set aside: taxpayers’ money. It is there to relieve overcrowding in Aboriginal communities and upgrade existing houses. There has been much controversy about how this program began and how it continues. I do not want to go into the history; we have debated the history many times.
Several issues still need to be addressed. The minister touched on one, and so did the Auditor-General. It is in relation to the alliance system. On page 15 of his report the Auditor-General said:
- The alliance model has not been used by the Northern Territory government previously and that would suggest particular care was required to ensure that alliancing was the approach most likely to achieve the desired program outcomes while also ensuring that value for money was achieved.
During debate in the last sittings I queried how we arrived at this alliance system. My understanding was a group of bureaucrats, after a workshop, said this was the way to go. I wonder if enough emphasis was given by people further up the chain of command to say: ‘Where are we heading with the alliance program?’ One of the major stumbling blocks we now have is uncovering the cost of this program. On page 38 of his report, the Auditor-General talked about total expenditure. He said when he breaks up the expenditure into personal wages, consultancies, operational expenditure, Territory Housing expenditure, capital works:
- It is important to put forward a caveat at this point. The amounts paid to the alliance partners are not confined to the direct costs of constructing or renovating houses, but also include the costs incurred in establishing workforces in remote locations, the costs of travel and accommodating those workforces, the costs of freight incurred in transporting materials to sites, and all the attendant costs that are incurred in operating any business.
The Auditor-General cannot find those costs; neither can the Council of Territory Cooperation which, in its first report, asked for detailed quarterly reports. Recommendation 7 said:
- The council recommends that all new, rebuilt or refurbished houses when handed over to Territory Housing have a publicly available final cost that includes an administrative component.
The government commented this information would be drawn from the quarterly financial reports as indicated in response to Recommendation 8, and will include total cost in number of houses or work done.
Recommendation 8 of the CTC said:
The council recommends that the Northern Territory and Australian governments provide the CTC with a detailed financial report of the SIHIP project every quarter.
The government response was:
- A detailed financial report will be provided at the end of each quarter.
That has not happened. If it has, it is nowhere near the extent we would expect. Because of the alliance program, we are told some of those details are commercial-in-confidence. However, the industry information session PowerPoint presentation made for prospective alliance partners on 13 April 2008 clearly stated under one of the key features there would be an open, honest and efficient sharing of information. Further back it said:
- Payment under a compensation model comprising reimbursement of program costs on an open book basis.
The alliance structure is difficult for me to understand; I am more used to a company tendering for a project where you know the cost. There is a blurred area. Even the Attorney-General cannot look into what the costs were.
There have been reports in this House of Toyotas purchased and money spent on items where people wonder what it has to do with the program. With a program where the federal and Northern Territory governments are partners in the alliance program, even the Auditor-General should be able to find out if costs are not really attributed to this program. The Auditor-General should be able to ask the cost of a house. We do not want to include the cost of the planning meetings - they were required to do that; one expects that to cost money. If you were really trying to compare the cost of a house at Port Keats, and Thamarrurr said they could produce a house much cheaper - they did not have to hold planning meetings, did not have to do scoping - you would need information about the concrete, the wiring, the lighting, the plumbing, the fencing, the landscaping, the sewerage, plus administration costs, plus travel, plus freight - the standard things you would require. You should be able to get that to have an idea of what houses are costing - a realistic price - and if someone says they can build a house cheaper, you can compare it.
I will give you a classic example. There has been much discussion about Willowra and other houses; councils can refurbish them at a cheaper price - they probably can. There are issues about quality. SIHIP has to do certain things to a certain standard. There are other added things. This information session report states there will be a code of conduct for construction - Commonwealth procurement guidelines require agencies to comply with the code. Further, under the safety commission, all contracts will have to fit in with the scheme established to improve occupational health and safety outcomes in the building construction industry which came into effect in March 2006. Councils may not have to do that; in fact, I doubt very much if they do.
To compare the refurbishments the alliance is doing with the refurbishments the council is doing you need to know those extra costs the SIHIP companies have to include in their $75 000. However, this alliance system seems to make that extremely difficult. For instance, I have asked if we could have a price on the eight houses refurbished at Milikapiti – no answer; it is part of a package. I would have thought that was a package on its own. The answer we receive all the time is: ‘You will get an answer when the whole package is completed’. That is fine. However, I would have thought an Auditor-General tracking the program should be able to say: ‘You, as an alliance partner, with all your accountants’ - do not forget we have a Commonwealth accountant and a Northern Territory accountant on the joint management program – ‘surely, any good business can break up costs for consultancies, an architect, and a safety audit’.
Whatever it is, with all the computers, all the management programs, surely our big building construction companies which make up these alliances have systems in place for their normal work? They do not build a building without some fairly detailed breakdown of the costs; they could run their project right off the Richter scale. They need to keep an eye on all costs so it remains in budget. Why can these companies not deliver details of what is being spent? It is very difficult for us to say: ‘Yes, it is going well. We understand there are some difficulties. What are those difficulties? Have you been spending money on unnecessary things?’ Even if they are required to spend that by the Commonwealth government, we would say: ‘Silly Commonwealth government, you have wasted money in that area’.
It is very difficult to grasp this program without being able to understand the costs of houses and refurbishments. Until that happens, we will keep receiving criticism about someone else being able to do it cheaper. It is fair enough to say that; I cannot say SIHIP is doing a good job unless I can show the job is either a better quality job - because they are required under the program to do a better quality refurbishment than the council - and they have had to include all those administrative costs the council did not because it already has that covered under its own budget.
That is a big area, minister. The CTC does not have the power to do this. The federal and Territory governments have to say: ‘When you signed up for this, you and the government said there would be payment under a compensation model comprising reimbursements of program costs on an open-book basis’. If it is not an open-book basis, how can the community have faith the reimbursements are correct? How do we know someone is not rorting the system if the open-book policy does not work?
The other issue I have is the system called the pain gain, pain share, and the gain share - I get confused. I presume it means if a company does very well it gets extra payments. If no one knows the real cost of the house, can the books be manipulated to suggest ‘we have done very well, therefore, we expect extra payments’? There is a commercial framework in this document. It talks about direct costs, corporate overheads, something called ‘M cost profit’ which, I believe, stands for minimum conditions of satisfaction in performance gain share. That is why I have trouble understanding this.
It is a program used on one of our construction contracts at the moment. Macmahon is using a similar program. If you have an open book system that is transparent - it is actually mentioned twice in this document. Under the heading Ensuring value for money it says: ‘open book accounting and auditing’. As our Auditor-General asks in his report, why can he not get the required details? This is a key factor if this program is to continue.
I do not agree with the member for Braitling that SIHIP has problems so scrap it. It is easy to say, and I feel that way sometimes myself. But the reality is there is a contract with the alliances to run the program until 2013. To pull the plug on the alliance now may cost far more than planned expenditure, which would be to the disadvantage of Aboriginal people. That does not mean there should not be criticism. However, I would not pull the pin. We need to monitor the program to ensure it is reaching targets, and doing it in the most efficient and cost-effective manner. Until we know what money is being spent directly on houses and what is being spent elsewhere, that is very hard to do.
The Auditor-General also mentioned payments. On page 40 he talks about overpayments. He said there are systems in place which have improved that. As it is difficult to get these details, how do we know? There might be overpayments; were they deliberate or accidental? I have trouble understanding how you can have an open book policy. The Auditor-General seems to have difficulty obtaining the details we need to ensure things are running smoothly and legally.
I am not accusing any alliance of any wrongdoing. The Auditor-General’s job is to ensure everything is okay. My question is: if he cannot find the figures, how can he say everything is okay? If he cannot see this documentation, how does he know everything is okay? Certainly, he has KPMG looking after things but they are working on a benchmark. We need to ensure this is an open book policy.
Statements have been made recently that there will be smaller subdivisions. I am not sure what that means. Issues have been raised about it at Wadeye, and about the houses being slightly smaller. I am not concerned about houses being smaller; it is an issue because it is about cost. The houses still look good to me. They may have gone from 4 m to about 3.6 m; the difference is marginal.
The issue regarding infrastructure worries me because we have moved the infrastructure portion from the original SIHIP project to another bucket of money. Someone would have said: ‘How much are these new subdivisions going to cost?’ received a price, which would come from the bucket of money. I have heard there is not enough money for the subdivisions as they were intended. Why? If the federal government said it would take infrastructure money from this bucket of money - which is about $1.1bn - why is it being capped to reduce the size of the subdivision? There needs to be an explanation.
It is important we know because the Auditor-General mentioned one of the major concerns is CPI increases are not taken into account. This is set up until 2013 expecting houses to be delivered at $495 000. There is no way a house will be delivered at $495 000, especially if steel is involved. There is going to be a new pricing system for iron and bauxite, which will be reflected in the price of steel and aluminium. That will reflect on the price of building a house. Has any consideration been given to CPI increases? The Auditor-General mentioned it in his report. At page 47 he said:
- … the lack of indexation of funds committed for SIHIP may mean that the ability of the program to deliver all that it is expected of it may be compromised.
The question I ask is: you have a figure that X number of houses will be built in 2013 using $695m; what is going to happen? Are we going to receive extra money to achieve that because the cost of materials is increasing, or are we going to make the houses smaller, or with fewer bedrooms, to ensure the program is achieved within budget?
This has been a fault in the program from the very start, especially with refurbishments. On refurbishments, the CTC visited Santa Teresa and looked at houses. The minister said there is a limitation on money, and I understand that. Minister, the reality of what you see on the ground makes me wonder whether the politicians who made this decision understand its impact on the community. I will give you an example. You spend $75 000 fixing up the laundry and the toilet of a house. You paint the house, put in some new windows; that is good. However, you leave the verandah covered in dirt - like a sand verandah. If I went to the community and said: ‘I would like to congratulate Mr and Mrs Smith on their new refurbished house; they have a lovely kitchen and a lovely toilet’, I would be embarrassed if they had to walk through the sand on the verandah to get there.
I am not saying it is easy; people making those decisions need to have more information. It might have been better to do the whole of Santa Teresa this year and not the next town. Budget considerations have to be taken into account. Let us do one community completely this year and tell the other communities they are next.
We have tried to be nice to everyone; we have spread the money and done half the job. We have quantity but not quality, which is where we have not thought this through.
The government might have said it was going to do programs in Central Australia because most are on five-year intervention leases and had to be done quickly - that is another issue. What will happen to these houses when the five-year leases run out? Who owns them; who will pick up the rent?
On the subject of leases, beside the financial side of it, leases are the number one issue if this program is to succeed. You are putting public houses on private property; you require a lease - fair enough – however, we are dragging our heels. There are all types of leases: 44-year precinct leases; 99-year town leases; five-year intervention leases; ordinary section 19 leases, and leases for the townships. We have made leasing an art form when normally it is not. It is not only this government - I should not be blaming this government - the federal government decided much of this; we have had to cope with decisions from down south. The CTC has written to Mrs Macklin and we have not received a response. I know it is election time, however, I would have been happy to meet her at a house at Santa Teresa. It is not so much about politics; we all want a practical program to improve Indigenous housing, and we want it to be realistic. I am unsure if they have their feet on the ground in Canberra when dealing with these issues.
Another issue is the sacking of Earth Connect. The CTC was told there would be a smooth transition; the Territory Alliance would take over. My understanding is that has not happened and Earth Connect is unhappy. I would like the minister to explain the latest on Earth Connect. Why are they not happy? What are the issues involved in their dispute with the government? How much delay has occurred in the housing at Groote Eylandt because of the changeover? We thought a one-month delay and things would be rosy.
I raise the Groote Eylandt issue for the sake of the member for Braitling. At the last sittings he mentioned houses being demolished. He said: ‘Gerry Wood said these were wonderful houses’. These were not the houses we saw. We were shown certain houses and they were good. The blocks might not have been perfect - and I know where the blocks come from now. The house was good. I have photos of the buildings that were demolished. They are not buildings. One was a floor - that is the floor. One was a series of posts which needed demolishing because they were crooked - there they are - they were just stumps. If you look at more pictures you will see some are not even at right angles. The other one is a floor pad, just gravel - that is it. We did not see those. Unfortunately, in the debate people inferred three houses were demolished; it was not the case. I am sure the CTC was not taken to those three sites. I could see if a pile was crooked or straight, and you can see they were not up to standard.
When we criticise SIHIP we should do it accurately, otherwise we do not do the debate justice. I want the program to succeed. I do not think anyone wants an Aboriginal housing program not to succeed. We want constructive criticism which needs to go back to the government.
Another key issue the minister mentioned is tenancy. That is as big a challenge as building the houses, and is an area I hope the CTC can continue to monitor. The houses at Port Keats are pretty good. People admonish me for saying I would not mind one of those. I will take people to my house, then through a house a Wadeye. If you think I am kidding when I say I would prefer one of the houses at Wadeye, you will know why. I have a 25-year-old demountable going down the middle of a house with brick walls on either side. Cockroaches love it, because they can walk underneath. You have to be fair; the houses are good quality houses.
There are some things we should look at, minister, such as refurbishments. Could it be reviewed and councils or local housing associations do the refurbishments? Why is that a job for the alliance? The other issue is infrastructure. Perhaps we should have put that out to companies involved in infrastructure, and the new subdivisions a separate tender. Builders can build the houses and not worry about putting in roads, sewerage and electricity. The government may have to take the lead in relation to leases. The SIHIP alliances should not have to worry about leases.
That path should be clear before they get there; leasing arrangements should be sorted. It is a key area if we want to make this program move quickly. If you have five-year intervention leases and we have spent umpteen million dollars on refurbishing houses, we need a tenancy arrangement where someone collects money for those houses. My understanding is, once that five-year intervention lease runs out, you do not have any right to collect money from those people. You will have spent taxpayers’ money on a house you cannot collect money for. That is an area I would like to hear about. What is the state of these houses on the five-year intervention leases?
Madam Deputy Speaker, this will continue to be debated, and I hope it does. It will continue to be criticised, and I hope it does. However, I hope it is done in the right context. In the end, we want good-quality houses in Indigenous communities to reduce overcrowding and to change people’s lives. Until that is done, we will keep going backwards. This might be a difficult phase we are going through, but we need to do it. We need to criticise, we need to look at what is happening so the outcomes can be better. It will not only be better for the taxpayers, it will be better for Indigenous people in the Northern Territory.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, it has been a fairly constructive debate so far, and I thank the minister and the member for Nelson for that. I will try to be as constructive as possible. There has been much debate over the Auditor-General’s report. There has been much media coverage. This program seems to be the gift that keeps on giving. The minister covered a number of areas in the Auditor-General’s report of concern. I do not want to go over those again.
One issue raised was I had suggested there was fraud. I questioned whether there could, potentially, be fraud within this program. On page 40 of the Auditor-General’s report he stated the issues identified had resulted in some overpayments being claimed by alliances. We need to get to the bottom of whether those claims were deliberate. That is where the question of potential fraud comes into it. This is not putting negativity on those businesses involved; we need to have a full understanding of that. The Auditor-General’s report was a desktop audit. As the member for Nelson suggested, it was not a full forensic audit with open access to all documents, all payments, all consultants fees, so we could understand where monies had gone.
You spoke about management systems not being quite right. That is well recognised in the report; it was very poor. I will not go into a political attack about how your government failed in that area. However, if you have poor management systems, and alliance contractors repeatedly putting in incorrect claims, you must investigate if there was a fraudulent intent. That is why I referred it to the Federal Police Commissioner; you had not allowed for this to be thoroughly investigated in an open and transparent process. I can update you on the request to the Police Commissioner, a copy of which you received. I received an e-mail on 1 July from a federal police officer; I will not name the person:
- Good afternoon, Mr Giles …
- I refer to your correspondence dated 11 June 2010 in which you request an investigation of practices of SIHIP …
I am paraphrasing some words.
- I can confirm receipt of your referral which will be considered by the AFP to determine whether a criminal investigation will be commenced. This decision will be made by an executive committee of AFP officers who will consider this referral against the AFP’s Case Categorisation and Prioritisation Model.
It goes on. They are still considering it, to answer your question. That is an update.
It is not saying, as suggested by you and the Chief Minister, that we are trying to cast aspersions over businesses within the alliance model or any subcontractors. That is not the case at all. We need to ensure there is no fraud, and no misconduct.
SIHIP has been a failure. I know government will meet targets. You will build 750 ‘things’. You will complete your rebuilds and your refurbishments. It is the quality of what you build. Instead of building a four-bedroom house with a verandah to reduce overcrowding, you are building a two-bedroom house. That is the concern, although it still accounts for your numbers. At Gunbalanya, in the member for Arafura’s electorate, looking at a place there …
Ms Scrymgour: They rang me as soon as you arrived.
Mr GILES: Sorry?
Ms Scrymgour: They told me you were there.
Mr GILES: That is good. There were eight one-bedroom units in the block. I do not have the address to identify it. Does that count as eight refurbishments or one - it is all in one house structure? This is where your failures are because it is not addressing the needs of overcrowding, and not addressing the needs of housing in the long term.
The member for Nelson spoke about leases and asked what happens after five years. That is a valid concern. People believe after five years the houses will go back to the previous ownership structure, and there will be no rights for Territory Housing to put in place a new management model, despite having the 10-year funding under the national partnership agreement. We will be back into that same cycle.
If you look at the $1.7bn 10-year national partnership agreement, and the five-year SIHIP - the five years is the first choice, not the 10 years - at the end of this program there will not be any long-term solutions for Indigenous housing in the bush.
Later today we will be debating telecommunications. I understand there are two different models in telecommunications. One is where one side of politics want to fund a big roll-out, and the other where there is a smaller amount of money being put in to leverage the private sector.
Regarding Indigenous housing, the SIHIP model has moved to what we might call the NBN-type model, where government does everything. SIHIP should have had a more strategic approach to leverage private sector money, get more money for a longer term and, at the end of the five-year SIHIP cycle, at the end of the 10-year NPA, we do not need more money because we have not finished things. That is the smarter model path you should have taken. I will argue similar things about telecommunications later.
It is also important to correct history in relation to the SIHIP model. I know government likes to blame everything on the Country Liberal Party forever and a day, and likes to say it was Mal Brough – in your words, with a gun to the head - for the alliance model. This was raised in depth with both the Chief Minister and the Minister for Housing at the Estimates Committee. Going through the memorandum of understanding signed in September 2007, dot points 8 and 9, I will quote 8:
- Consistent with this procurement process, a new contracting methodology based on a strategic alliance approach will be used to deliver the $793m in funds being offered by the Australian government as well as the $100m in funds that has been announced by the Northern Territory government for use in Indigenous housing. In addition to this, the new contracting methodology may be used to deliver Australian and Northern Territory government funding for staff housing, safe houses and childcare facilities in remote Indigenous communities.
That was $793m. I am unsure how it reached $550m, or where the other approximately $200m has gone. If you could clarify that in your final statement that would be good, minister. Do we need to pursue where the Indigenous dollars have gone - whether they have gone into other programs? That agreement stated $793m.
Point 9 says:
- The Northern Territory government has a strong preference for Australian government funding to be provided to Territory Housing, which will be the purchaser of program manager services for application of the $793m in existing and new commitments. The Australian government is prepared to support this proposal on the demonstration by the Northern Territory government of its capacity to deliver through a performance-based contract with payments based on outcomes achieved.
Clearly, that has not occurred: performance-based contracts based on outcomes being achieved. There has been much commentary about the gun to the head. On 9 June 2010 the Housing minister said in this House:
- The opposition should remember the alliance model was insisted on by Mal Brough as part of the agreement this government signed with Mal Brough, from memory, in about 2007.
He went on further to say:
- Mal Brough was a take-no-prisoners bloke, and gun-to-the-head ...
This agreement says you can do it how you want. That is the agreement you signed as government. I am going through this to prove the point so we can clarify history. The member for Casuarina, who was the …
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr GILES: The member for Casuarina spoke on 29 April 2010 and said:
- It was Mal Brough who came here and insisted SIHIP would take place only under the alliance model ...
The memorandum of understanding you signed said it was up to you; it was given to you to manage. I quote the member for Casuarina, when he was Minister for Housing, 1 May 2008, from his ministerial statement:
- A total of $647m which includes $100m from the Territory will be directed through the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program over the next five years.
We have agreed to implement what is called a Strategic Alliance model.
That is seven months after a change of federal government; seven months after the change in the MOU. We have lost $230m-odd out of the program …
Dr Burns: How do you calculate that? Can you go through that calculation again - the $230m?
Mr GILES: The MOU said $793m, plus $100m from the NT government. The $647m spoken about by the member for Casuarina, who was the Housing minister at the time - he talked about $647m, including the $100m, so $547m from Commonwealth dollars. This is the minister’s statement of 1 May 2008. We have gone from $793m to $547m; there is a discrepancy in federal dollars. I would like to know where that has gone; whether it has been siphoned off to other projects or what has happened.
Further in the minister’s statement he said:
- Alliance contracting is based on: cooperation between stakeholders and contractors; achieving outcomes rather than focusing on self-interest …
- The federal minister, Jenny Macklin, has shown the kind of vision so lacking in her predecessors’ approach to the portfolio. A key to the new strategic indigenous housing program being rolled out is summed up by a simple word: alliance - a genuine alliance that now exists between the Commonwealth and Northern Territory governments. The strategic alliance model is being adopted to bring Aboriginal stakeholders, private enterprise and government together in this great social and economic enterprise. It is a model that is based on evidence.
Clearly, this is your model. This is no gun-to-the-head Mal Brough model. I will defend Mal Brough; he provided the $793m. You chose the alliance model, live with it ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, if I could interrupt you, we have reached midday and you will have the opportunity to conclude your remarks following Question Time.
Debate suspended.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Member for Braitling
Member for Braitling
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have given my leave to the member for Braitling to make a personal explanation. I remind you that a personal explanation is not a debate, and I ask you to show the courtesy of silence during the member for Braitling’s personal explanation.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, yesterday in the House I made an unparliamentarily comment off camera which was picked up by the Chamber recording system. I would like to withdraw that comment and apologise.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Braitling.
MOTION
Note Paper - Auditor-General’s Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program June 2010 Report
Note Paper - Auditor-General’s Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program June 2010 Report
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, earlier I spoke of my concerns that fraud could have occurred; I stand by this. Things could have happened, whether deliberate or otherwise. Territorians, particularly Indigenous Territorians, have been defrauded by the programs of Indigenous housing and SIHIP. They were promised so much, yet Labor had delivered so little …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member is making unsubstantiated allegations Territory businesses have defrauded Territorians. The Auditor-General’s report shows there is no fraud.
Ms CARNEY: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker! It is clear the member was not making those allegations; he was suggesting various things may have happened. He did not make any specific allegations against any company or individual.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, if you could remember the standing orders and keep within those.
Mr GILES: Madam Speaker, I completely understand the standing orders. This is not to say any businesses may have done the wrong thing, however, it is important when the Ombudsman …
Ms Lawrie: Auditor-General.
Mr GILES: … identifies invoices were put in incorrectly, we have to have a full and thorough audit of all the paperwork. The Auditor-General was only able to do a desktop audit.
Indigenous Territorians were defrauded by SIHIP; they were promised so much and received so little. They were promised, in the memorandum of understanding signed in September 2007 between the Australian and Territory governments, $793m in funds from the Australian government, plus $100m from the Northern Territory government. In May 2008, the then Housing minister, the member for Casuarina, said a total of $647m, which included $100m from the Territory, would be directed through the Strategic Indigenous Housing Infrastructure Program.
With the intervention, a number of initiatives were perceived to be difficult, or hard to swallow, by many Indigenous Territorians, including the BasicsCard, welfare quarantining, the law and order presence coming into communities, which some people saw as tough - not everyone; some people saw it as tough – SIHIP, and the improvement of housing, the long-lasting future of sustainable housing and refurbished housing, was supposed to provide one of the sweeteners, along with economic development and employment opportunities.
These things have not occurred, and housing is a sour taste left in the mouths of both Indigenous and non-Indigenous Territorians because everyone in the Northern Territory understands the importance of fixing houses in the bush so people do not have to uproot their families and rely on town services. We know towns are in a housing crisis, and we are placing further pressure on that.
In relation to that word ‘fraud’, I do not want government getting too sensitive about this. It can mean a number of different things, including not setting up the appropriate management systems when you tell us you have everything under control. The management systems are not working. The Auditor-General’s report identifies, by not setting up those management systems properly, there have been problems within the program. We believed you had these things working. That is defrauding us; we thought things were working and they are not.
Also, telling Territorians $200 000 will be spent on every rebuild, and the contractors saying: ‘You are only going to get $70 000 spent on a rebuild’. That happened this week! The minister said: ‘We are spending $200 000 rebuilding a house’. You are only spending $70 000. The contractors are saying there is only $70 000 to spend. It is happening right now. That is defrauding Territorians.
You said you build houses and conduct refurbishments to standards in line with the Building Code of Australia; however, you are not meeting those standards at all. That is a fraud. You cannot tell us you are doing one thing then not do it; that is fraud. It is fraud when you say you are meeting the standards when you are not.
A perfect example of that are the refurbishments at Ali Curung. I have raised this before. Overflow from the solar hot water systems is running off the roof - pouring off. We ask why that is. The government told us these would be done to standards. Australian Standard 3500, the Building Code of Australia, determines an overflow from a hot water system must be directed away from any potential damage to people or property. You do not have a hose or pipe to take the running water away from the overflow so it keeps running down the roof, over the edges because there are no gutters, leaving calcified deposits on the roof, rusting roofs, and puddles of water for the kids to walk through into the house. That is not helping anyone.
We ask: how can this be? Surely, there must be an independent certifier to certify these houses have been done to standard? When the houses were scoped, in nearly every case they did not send in professionals. They sent in bureaucrats to assess what needed to happen and then their builders did the work. They recognise there is not enough money because the government skimmed off the top for contractors, bureaucrats and other services. The builders cannot do the work properly, and when you are ready to get a certifier in you discover the certification process is done by the alliance contractors themselves. They do not have an external certifier to ensure the work is done to standard.
That is why it is fraud. That is why this program is a fraud. This is the biggest injection of money into the Territory to fix one of the biggest social needs and it goes through a fiscal equalisation process. It was money, albeit downgraded once Labor came into power in 2007, however, it was money to fix a real need. That has not happened; that is not the case. Money has gone out the door.
When we talk about money being on the ground, we know what is said by government is not true. Alyssa Betts had an article in the paper recently about Laramba: $75 000 for repairs and maintenance, or ‘fix and make safe’. At Laramba they have been told they have $24 000 per house to do the work. What happened to the other $51 000?
We heard today in Question Time about administrative wastage under the BER. We know those buildings are welcomed in schools by parents, students, P and Cs, by principals. It is not about the buildings. It is about the debt created and the mismanagement; the lack of value for money and the waste in the BER …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, your time has expired.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I contribute to debate on the Auditor-General’s report, which I have read, and I have spoken to various people about. It is a desktop audit; an audit based on figures and numbers on papers. He has not gone to Santa Teresa or Laramba or Ali Curung or anywhere to see there is not $75 000 per house spent on refurbishments in these communities.
If you go to Ali Curung and Santa Teresa you will see $75 000 is not being spent. There are no floors on the verandahs as you come out of the bathroom. You have had a shower and walk through dirt to get back inside the house. It is very basic. It is spray-painted inside, with shelving in the kitchen and no cupboards for families to put food away; there are no cupboards for clothes to be put away, no cupboard for children’s clean clothing to be put away.
I have a letter written by a young girl called Narelle Palmer. I would like to put it on the Parliamentary Record. She lives at Santa Teresa, House 239, Loop Road, Old Village, Santa Teresa. The letter reads:
- To Whom It May Concern:
Following my conversation with Tammy, the Shire Manager, today regarding a suitable house for my family, I am forwarding my request for a three or four-bedroom house.
I am currently living in a small two-bedroom house with my partner and two children, and expecting a third child. My cousin, Fernando Palmer, aged 16, who is at boarding school at St John’s College in Darwin, will also be staying with me during the school holidays as she has been put under my care. I also have an 18-year-old sister, Caitlin, and a 15-year-old cousin, Gayle, who have no fixed address and often need to stay with me.
I am very concerned for my family’s health and safety because the condition of the house we live in is very poor and the house is very small. There are several problems that concern me.
One of the major problems we have been experiencing is ongoing power shortage due to water leaking through the ceiling which may be caused by the water running from the airconditioning. My electric frying pan, toaster and kettle have blown and no longer work, and I had to throw away food that has gone off because the fridge and freezer went off due to power failure.
There are also a number of cracks on the walls around the house where a lot of dust gets through and even poisonous spiders and insects such as scorpions and centipedes constantly appear in the house.
- Another big problem we have to deal with is ongoing toilet blockage due to roots growing in the drain pipes. Some of my other concerns are: there are no proper floor coverings, which makes it very difficult to keep it clean, there is no concrete on the back verandah, no tiling in the bathroom and the kitchen windows do not close properly.
I request a three or four-bedroom house to cater for my family.
I look forward to hearing from someone from Housing as soon as possible as I don’t think I can continue to live in the house the way it is much longer, as it is causing me real stress.
I had my name down for a house in Alice Springs and Amoonguna for over two years and had to return to Santa Teresa as I had nowhere to stay. After several months here I was given the house, No 239, and I was grateful for it as I had nowhere to stay. The house was not clean, the toilet was blocked and the tap at the back was leaking. The stove could not be used as it was rusty. I cleaned the house, took the stove outside and scrubbed it. I went to the dump and got bits and pieces to make the house liveable. I asked for paint and I painted the house. There is no cupboard space in the house, and nowhere I can put a table and chairs. I would like to train my children to sit at a table for meals and I would also like a place where my children and I can do some ongoing study and writing.
This is the real reason we are in parliament. This is a 19-year-old mother of three, writing to every member of this parliament in desperate need to have things we all have for our families.
The minister is saying $75 000 is being spent on every house. It is obvious you have not been to Santa Teresa. Instead of Santa Teresa people getting Abbott and Gillard to live in their house, they ought to ask you to live inside the house you have spent $13 000, $15 000 or $20 000 renovating over summer, with no air-conditioning and no tiles, nowhere to put your food, nowhere to put kids clothing, nowhere to cook, and nowhere for your children to sit at the table with you as parents. Maybe you need to trade with young Narelle Palmer.
I would like to read another letter this young lady has written.
- To Whom It May Concern:
In reference to my letter on 19 March, 2009.
I am writing to complain about the house we are currently living in. I wrote a letter to Housing on 19 March and have not yet received a response from anyone.
She has references from people who have educated her. One of the referees is a lady called Helen Parer. She has known Narelle for over 12 years, and knows she is a fantastic young Territorian who will contribute to the future. Narelle wants to do something with her children’s lives. Narelle cannot continue to live in a two-bedroom house.
Lena Cavenagh, the oldest resident at Santa Teresa, has just moved into the house the member for Braitling was referring to, the house the CTC visited. How can we have anyone moving in and expected to pay rent for a house that you have said on public record, for over a year, is in the most open and accountable system. The renovations in the house Lena Cavenagh has moved into are not $75 000 worth; not $25 000. They have used a steam blaster for the bathroom, painted the floor without tiling it, put in the kitchen; nothing else. They did not even paint the outside of the house, only the inside. There was asbestos on the roof, and we know as long as people do not touch it asbestos is safe. It was patched in that corner. I have a photograph of the house before the renovations were done. There was a hole in the left-hand corner as you walk into the house which has been repaired. Over time that will start to crack or fall to bits. Mrs Cavenagh might not live long enough to be contaminated by the asbestos; however, her grandchildren certainly will. They will live in that house and be expected to pay the same amount of rent for a house that has not been renovated properly.
Madam Speaker, I seek leave, on behalf of Narelle Palmer, to table photographs of her and her children so parliament can see who Narelle Palmer is.
Leave granted.
Ms ANDERSON: She is a 23-year-old woman desperate to house her children in something she can call a home; a little more than two bedrooms with three children and other siblings she looks after.
In the other letter you will see this family has moved from place to place; from the Top End to Central Australia because they have no parents. She has been the parent for her siblings and has taken her sisters through the antisocial behaviour problem, getting them to have a good quality education at St John’s so they can be better citizens of the Territory rather than going through the revolving door of the justice system we quite often discuss in this House. We need to change these circumstances.
The Auditor-General spoke of many things; it was a desktop audit done on figures given to him. I would like to have seen the Auditor-General go to places such as Ali Curung, Santa Teresa, and Laramba to see for himself if the houses are being refurbished for $75 000. I asked the question of the minister in estimates: how many people do we have fly-in and fly-out? The answer was 65 or 67. Is the program picking up the day-to-day cost of the fly-in/fly-out because when it rained in Central Australia these people were flown back to Queensland? This money is going out of the Territory economy. Is SIHIP here to boost the Queensland economy or the Territory economy? Is it here to give jobs to Territory contractors, our plumbers, our electricians, our builders - people who work in industry?
I read with great interest - I was out bush when it happened – that you were talking about Indigenous training. Whatever happened to Ingkerreke and all those guys who worked on the town camps in Alice Springs? They were put off with no notification. Is there real sustainable training? Are we really serious about giving Indigenous organisations such as Ingkerreke the capacity to be part of this process, part of training the future generation of Indigenous Central Australians to hold real jobs? Are we serious about that? Are we serious about spending $75 000 on these houses, or is it something we talk about in this House and feed to the media - we are spending $75 000 per house. I welcome anyone to the three communities I have named, Santa Teresa, Laramba and Ali Curung, and you will see $75 000 per house has not been spent.
Madam Speaker, I encourage the Auditor-General to visit these communities and have the pleasure of talking to people such as Narelle and see where she lives. These photographs are a great demonstration of the cracks in the walls she speaks about in her letter. There are many houses like that. The member for Braitling and I went to Ali Curung together and he is right - air-conditioners are still leaking on the windows. They have been taken out, and people have been asked to get the shire to put them back in at cost to the owner of the house. I do not think that is good enough.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I speak on one specific issue already touched upon briefly in this House in relation to the Auditor-General’s report into SIHIP. When the member for Braitling touched on the matter, it was a microsecond before the Treasurer of the Northern Territory leapt to the defence of the alliances based on the comments made by the member for Braitling. It is important this issue be properly explored for the sake of the people of the Northern Territory and not some blithe cover-all ‘she’ll be right, mate’ approach taken by government.
This deals with the matter of overpayments to the alliances in relation to invoices they had submitted to the joint committee; the committee overseeing SIHIP as a program of the federal and Northern Territory governments.
One of my great concerns, as the former member for Macdonnell and long-time Territorian, has been the tendency, through whatever process of delivering services or infrastructure into the bush, for contractors to take advantage of the anonymity provided by the tyranny of distance in the Northern Territory when it comes to scrutiny of the work they do. That is not to say it was common practice this advantage was taken by contractors. I do not, for one second, suggest that advantage is being taken now, nor does the Auditor-General. However, I am concerned because circumstances have occurred in the past where contractors spending what was originally public money have taken advantage of the anonymity of remote work.
The matter of overpayments referred to by the Auditor-General in his report on SIHIP notes the money has been recovered. I am led to understand the money recovered is not an insubstantial amount; well into six figures. Members also need to understand the Auditor-General’s world is not a globe; it is a flat earth in some respects. The reason his world is a flat earth is the parameters of his domain are limited by the parameters of the legislative instrument which empowers him to do his job. Namely, he can look at the expenditure and accounting systems of Northern Territory government departments; he cannot look beyond those borders. The rest of the world is an opaque place to the Auditor-General, and that includes the expenditure of public monies when granted to a third party contractor.
In the SIHIP system, and the alliances the Northern Territory government created, the process followed is as they roll out work from time to time, they will invoice the committee which will then pay those invoices. What prevents the alliances from padding out the invoices they present? What was proposed with the alliance model was a third party auditor, who is not the Auditor-General, be allowed to oversee the auditing role of those alliances. That third party, as I understand it, was KPMG. It was as a result of one of KPMG’s audits the joint committee determined it was necessary to review the invoices it had received. It was as a result of that review the committee determined to claw back many hundreds and thousands of dollars. Where the Auditor-General is silent, and where KPMG is presumably silent, is the motive behind padding out the invoices presented which caused the overpayment of hundreds and thousands of dollars. This comes down to three possibilities.
Possibility one: it was a mere oversight on the part of the alliances when they were putting in their invoices and, as such, was a reasonable and honest mistake. Neither the Auditor-General nor KPMG passed any comment on that possibility.
The second possibility is when it comes to invoicing in these types of contractual arrangements, there is always a grey area as to what can be invoiced and what cannot. The person in the accounts department sees an item: ‘Does that fall within the definition of what can be invoiced? I am not sure. What the hell, I will throw it in there anyhow’. Both KMPG and the Auditor-General remain silent on whether or not this occurred.
The third option is there is an intentional use of the system to pad out invoices to claim more than is contractually available to the alliances. I note KPMG and the Auditor-General remain silent on this issue.
There is no allocation by the Auditor-General of motive for the over statement of these invoices. When the department determined these were actually overpayments they were quickly recovered, and it appears there was no contest on the part of the alliances.
This raises a question which the Treasurer, the Chief Minister, no member of this parliament, or the Auditor-General is in a position to answer. That is: what was the motivation behind the excessive invoicing of public monies as administered by SIHIP? That is a very important question.
It would be impossible for me to render any allegation of impropriety on the part of the alliances based on the information we have to hand. Similarly, it is impossible for the Treasurer to declare innocence on the part of any parties based on the information we have. As a House, we simply do not know. Why? Because the Auditor-General has been unable to inform us.
One of our fundamental roles as legislators is also the overseers of the public purse. We have committees dedicated to that role. The Public Accounts Committee, of which I am a member, is one. Consequently, I believe it is important an investigation be launched and, frankly, I am surprised the minister has not launched an investigation as to the circumstances which led to excessive invoices being lodged against the funds allocated to this program.
I expect, knowing some of the participants in these alliances as I do, there will be no evidence of any act which could be considered to be untoward, criminal or villainous in any way. However, it is not for us to simply say: ‘Oh, we know these people; they would not do something like that’. This community is full of examples of righteous and upstanding people having been exposed carrying a darker side. Whilst I do not make that allegation in relation to anyone involved in these alliances, the minister and this House must satisfy themselves nothing of that nature has occurred. It is our duty to do so.
Taxpayers rely upon us, as a House of review, to do that. I call upon the minister with responsibility for this area, to look at what has occurred. With this grey area hanging over the alliances, I imagine they would be delighted with an opportunity to have this grey area removed and their integrity restored. Until this question is answered, and answered publicly, it will remain. If I was one of the alliances, I would be seeking to demonstrate nothing untoward had happened and the overpayment was an oversight. I have always believed in our system; the innocent have nothing to fear from scrutiny.
Madam Speaker, in the absence of knowing any better, I argue in the strongest possible terms that that review be conducted publicly; so the public can be satisfied the overpayments made to the alliances were a clerical issue rather than something more sinister.
Mr McCARTHY (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I add my comments to the debate on the roll-out of the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program. Much has been said about SIHIP in the Territory. There is no doubt its roll-out has not been without difficulty, particularly around the introduction of the alliance contracting model required by the federal government. SIHIP is needed. Let us not forget this is a record injection of funds into Indigenous housing; a record level of commitment to closing the gap for Indigenous health and housing outcomes. Sadly, the standard of housing for Indigenous Territorians was neglected for decades.
When I reflect on Indigenous housing in the Northern Territory, I remember my first real contact with the challenge. It related to the famous gold rush festival of Tennant Creek. As a school teacher running a transitional unit for Indigenous primary kids, most of whom were transitioning into their first school, I was excited to develop a project where we organised a float and joined the procession to open the Gold Rush Festival. I definitely excited the imagination of my adoptive mother from Walmanpa country, Bunny Nabarula, who took great delight in mustering the enthusiasm of not only the kids, also the parents, with the potential of having the traditional owners on the back of an old truck in a major procession down the main street of Tennant Creek.
The first job was to collect artefacts to decorate the flat top of the old Warumungu Housing Association truck. We decided to ask our family members to donate artefacts. In those days, Tennant Creek was made up of a number of fringe camps, with no housing infrastructure, and this is where my students came from. We skirted through the camp closest to the town known as Kargaru camp. I can remember Bunny Nabarula negotiating furiously with an old man about the use of some excellent artefacts adorning his camp. As the children scurried through the scrub and collected some very good spears and took off, I turned to see pieces of corrugated iron collapsing around this old gentleman; I was embarrassed and a little shocked.
That was my first recollection of Indigenous housing. I realised this was the old man’s house and the spears were supporting his dwelling. We used those spears, we returned those spears, and the procession went ahead and it was an absolutely fabulous day. I remember running the length of Paterson Street excitedly as a young school teacher, as the kids and the parents were proud to take what would have been the first Warumungu float in the gold rush festival down the main street of Tennant Creek.
I started to take an interest in Indigenous housing and Indigenous issues. The government of the day had the challenge of delivering Indigenous housing. I was a witness to the first stage of the development of Indigenous housing; the tin houses. The tin houses were an attempt by government to deliver housing for Indigenous Territorians and the tin houses - some remain today in Tennant Creek, most not inhabited - stand as a marker in time of a government initiative for housing. I would need to research the Parliamentary Record to find the level of debate which took place in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly around the delivery of an Indigenous housing program.
From that time, I commenced an extensive period in remote areas and lived in cattle station communities where there was no Indigenous housing. The first housing wave was tin houses, and at the Barkly cattle station, some merely garden sheds. I thought this was going to be a very difficult job; a massive job. My first question was whether the government of the day had the goodwill to continue delivering Indigenous housing, to close the gap on Indigenous disadvantage. I saw the tin houses as a very meagre attempt to do that.
There has been much development in housing initiatives, and I have been walking side by side with those in remote, regional, and urban areas. I am proud of the fact my home town of Tennant Creek led the way in the latest major Indigenous housing initiative.
In October 2008, the then Housing minister, Hon Rob Knight, announced an agreement had been reached for the NT government to sublease eight community living areas from the Julalikari Council Aboriginal Corporation for 60 years. It was the first agreement of its kind to be reached in the Territory, and flagged the start of work in Tennant Creek. From very much a passive position of advising, talking and lobbying with organisations and people, I have witnessed an Indigenous housing initiative never before seen in the Northern Territory premised on proper consultation and partnership with the very people it serves to close the gap on disadvantage.
This has not been recognised in the rhetoric in this House and the sustained attacks from the opposition looking for the potential to embarrass and ridicule the government and create negative media. When I return home, and when I travel in the regions - and we are first to admit it is not without problems - we focus on the positives. This is very much a new era in how to address Indigenous disadvantage with health and education.
The Julalikari Aboriginal Corporation made it clear their plan was to refurbish houses in the community living areas of Tennant Creek. Of those 78 houses to be rebuilt, 34 have been completed.
There is also a good story around the civil construction, once again, a program where government, at federal and Territory levels, has entered into consultation with the Indigenous people it most directly affects, and worked on the different facets of the project, one being civil construction. The system under SIHIP is to deliver ongoing governance. Not only have we had extensive consultation and partnerships, we have had intensive training to employment programs, the development of real governance about how to sustain Indigenous housing which has been grown in the Territory in an era very much different from the old man who donated his spears, to the tin houses, to the now new community living areas taking shape in Tennant Creek, with models of governance which will deliver a mainstream outcome to Indigenous housing and take Indigenous people forward with it.
I am very proud of the training opportunities SIHIP offered young Indigenous people. Twenty-seven Indigenous staff were employed on the Tennant Creek package of works. This equates to about 42% of the workforce. Having worked with Indigenous youth with work ready programs and training to employment programs, it must be recognised, when you take on people who are unskilled in areas of construction and infrastructure and offer them opportunities to learn, it involves intensive instruction which adds to costs and blows out time frames. However, what is the cost of developing skills, sustainability and future opportunities?
There has been little discussion about that from members opposite who are quick to jump to a bureaucratic argument. I am not saying the accounting and other issues are not important; however, it would be good to focus on visiting communities such as the member for Macdonnell mentioned, and look at the training, employment, and engagement of the people this program serves to close the gap on disadvantage.
In Tennant Creek, I know many workers who have taken on the challenge. There have been successes, challenges, and failures. The main thing is we keep moving this forward. We cannot go back now, and SIHIP will march forward and take the Indigenous community it serves with it. As government, we need to recognise and support that. That is a responsibility for all members in this House.
I can give an example. The communities in my electorate flagged to benefit over the next few years from SIHIP include Alpurrurulam, Borroloola, Canteen Creek, Jilkminggan, Minyerri, Robinson River, Wutunugurra, and Epenarra. When I visit these communities I say to people we need to talk about housing and the opportunities this will present, and to search out the young people who can be involved in this and will learn the skills to sustain housing initiatives into the future. It goes back to being a school teacher; connecting with the community as an MLA; deconstructing one of the biggest and most progressive Indigenous housing initiatives seen in this country.
The Northern Territory is leading the way and being watched closely by Western Australia and Queensland, not only in the delivery of infrastructure and construction, but the negotiation, the liaison, the cross-cultural communication initiatives which have been put in place by this government to get this program up and running.
This is a mega-role for me; it is an exciting role, and I continue to do it. However, I compare with some members opposite. The member for Braitling and the broken septic tank in his electorate - and I encourage all members, if you discover failing infrastructure you can take a hands-on approach and encourage people to solve the problem. Several pieces of corrugated iron and a few rocks might have been a good temporary measure while you were instructing, guiding or mentoring that family on how the shire services work, how those repairs and maintenance schedules take shape, and the necessary communication with the local shire to enact that repair schedule for their problem.
Likewise, if you come across a family which has had a privately purchased air-conditioner removed from the window and a security screen fitted, because the decision of the community was to fit security screens under a government intervention program to address housing infrastructure, take those people and start the mentoring process on how they can refit the air-conditioner. You can take it straight to the press, write letters to the Tennant Creek and District Times, bring it into this House, and make a big song and dance about how the government has failed that family.
I will give credit where credit is due; I will take responsibility where responsibility needs to be taken. However, I much prefer the method of liaising, mentoring and communicating with people about how to solve problems, as opposed to trying to create headlines and inaccurate information which does not tell the full story.
As the minister acknowledged, SIHIP is no silver bullet or panacea for decades of neglect of Indigenous housing and chronic overcrowding. It is a huge leap forward in a commitment from the Territory and federal governments to improve housing for Indigenous Territorians now and into the future.
I am sad to say the old man who loaned us his spears is no longer around, nor is the truck driver who drove the old Warumungu Housing Association truck, the only real piece of transport infrastructure the association had. Were they around today, I am sure they would celebrate the government’s work in this important area. They would be able to communicate far more eloquently the messages we need to send to the Indigenous community about SIHIP, Indigenous housing, closing the gap and closing Indigenous disadvantage. That level of traditional knowledge, law, culture and structure has been slipping away. It is our responsibility to ensure young generations take up the wise words and role models of their traditional owners, leaders, countrymen and ancestors. That equates to working together to deliver good models of governance around Indigenous housing, Territory Housing, and the sustainability factor. We are well and truly on that track.
I have been privileged to visit areas outside my electorate. I visited a SIHIP house project at Umbakumba, deserted the official party and caught up with a couple of local Indigenous guys working in a laundry. I took delight in talking to them and communicating the need and importance of moving forward, not taking backward steps, or listening to the negativity, but building on the positives and creating a new environment to close the gap on Indigenous disadvantage.
Madam Speaker, when I visited the Arafura electorate and wonderful Maningrida, a legendary place I had never been to, I witnessed a subdivision to develop new houses. I was able to talk about not creating subdivisions, or infrastructure, creating communities. That needs to be recognised in both the federal and Territory Labor governments’ initiatives in Indigenous housing known as SIHIP.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I thank all members for their contribution to this very important debate on the Auditor-General’s report. Members have endeavoured to be constructive and identify past and ongoing challenges for SIHIP. Each member has contributed well to this debate, and I have listened carefully to the offerings of members.
The member for Nelson had a very balanced appraisal of SIHIP, made some good observations and suggestions, and is across much of the detail of SIHIP in its history and challenges. I will go through the issues raised by the member for Nelson. He said it was hard to ascertain specific costs that were part and parcel of the alliance model; however, he saw that as a problem. He would like to see, as work progressed and each house was completed, a value for each house rather than an average value, or a range of values for refurbishments.
My advice is the Chief Executive of FaHCSIA, Dr Jeff Harmer, has given a commitment to provide this level of information at the end of each package. The reason given is the package’s direct costs, materials, labour, logistics, GST, fees, etcetera, cannot be known immediately. Nonetheless, the program level indirect cost is attributed to the package at the end. These two cross-categories make up the total amount spent on each element of the works and, to some degree, is like amortising an investment. You might buy a machine which makes widgets. You pay $100 000 for that machine and start producing widgets. It is not right to say the first widget produced is worth $100 000 or $10 000. You have to look at the life of the machine, the associated costs, your overheads, and all the rest: So it is with these indirect costs. Rightly so, Dr Harmer has given an undertaking he will place on the public record those costs at the end of each package. That is appropriate otherwise distortions may arise and is a good undertaking to give.
The member for Nelson raised the issue of overpayments, as did the members for Port Darwin and Braitling. That is an important issue which I will address when I turn to their offerings.
The member for Nelson asked the latest on Earth Connect. He asked, and I quote: ‘Why aren’t they happy?’ They are not happy because they have been transitioned out of the program, member for Nelson …
Mr Elferink: Why were they transitioned out?
Dr BURNS: I can tell the House negotiations are occurring with Earth Connect. No fee will be paid to them to exit the program. Present negotiations cover the value of the works completed, or partially completed, and the value of materials. One can understand Earth Connect is not pleased with being transitioned out of the program …
Mr Elferink: You fired them.
Dr BURNS: They were transitioned out of the program, member for Port Darwin.
Mr Elferink: The question is why were they fired?
Dr BURNS: That was part of the contractual agreement; people could be transitioned out of the program.
Mr Elferink: Why were they fired?
Dr BURNS: The Auditor-General’s report makes it plain why. There were questions about materials, workmanship, and the ability to meet deadlines. I turn to what he said:
- In my view the approach adopted was sound and defensible.
Mr Elferink: And the rest, keep going. Read the whole thing if you are going to read it.
Dr BURNS: I am not going to read the whole report. In his overview he said:
- These deficiencies had manifested themselves in areas such as site preparation for new housing, the quality of construction and the quality of construction materials used.
Dr BURNS: It was regarding the quality and capacity of Earth Connect. At Groote Eylandt recently I saw the infamous laminated beams already cracking despite the treatment they had received. I also saw the inadequate site preparation, and some of the footings which had been constructed. As the member for Nelson pointed out, it is a bit of hyperbole for people to say houses were being demolished when they were footings and steel brackets coming out of the ground. Some of the dwellings have not reached any significant stage, and those that have will be turned over to the Anindilyakwa Land Council as a training ground to enable local Indigenous people to finish construction and use them for various purposes ...
Mr Elferink: If they are substandard why are you negotiating …
Dr BURNS: That is the story. We are still negotiating with Earth Connect about a settlement.
The member for Nelson mentioned better outcomes. He was focused on that and exhorted both governments to ensure, through this program of SIHIP, we attain better outcomes.
The role of KPMG was an issue the member for Nelson raised. KMPG does a compliant audit of the alliances accounting system and a substantive audit of individual transactions.
One very important point raised by the member for Nelson was there is no CPI or escalation built into SIHIP, and he is quite right. This will provide a challenge, and he is right to identify it as a substantial risk to the program coming in on budget. It was a decision not to allow escalation. The alliances will adapt their products and deliver methods to continually improve the value for money of the program. The challenge is to perform above the minimum condition of satisfaction and achieve delivery costs which will counter any cost escalation. In the brief I have - and I will read it for you, member for Nelson, it says:
- Alliancing is renowned for achieving stretch and gain breaking results …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! The member said he is reading from a brief. Under standing orders, I seek he table that brief. They are not personal notes.
Dr BURNS: I have annotations on them, member for Port Darwin, so …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! The member said he was quoting from a brief, not personal notes. He is obliged, under standing orders, to table such a brief. I seek he be instructed to do so.
Dr BURNS: Everything I am saying from this brief is going on the Parliamentary Record, member for Port Darwin. Please let me get on with it; I am not going to table it - full stop.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! I seek he tables it in accordance with standing orders. If you seek advice from the Clerk …
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, I will seek advice from the Clerk.
Member for Port Darwin, the minister said he has made comments in writing on the brief. He is right in saying he does not have to, and will not be, tabling the document he is talking from.
Mr Elferink: Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker - a secretive and furtive government in action.
Dr BURNS: I am addressing real issues raised by the member for Nelson. I thank him for his contribution; it has been very constructive. One of the issues raised was the cap on the infrastructure budget. The advice I have is the alliance has been requested to design infrastructure to 2030, so any construction now will not need upsizing for programs after SIHIP. However, the scope of construction is only enough to deliver the SIHIP targets. In other words, the design of the infrastructure will cope until 2030. However, the infrastructure constructed has been tailored to meet the exact targets of SIHIP.
Subdivision will be constructed in stages - first SIHIP, and then subsequent capital works programs as funds become available. The design is there for the future; our focus is delivery of SIHIP, and the infrastructure being sufficient to support SIHIP. This allows community members to be involved in the planning of their subdivisions well into the future.
I have already spoken about Earth Connect. You spoke about other methods of delivery of the refurbishments. I am in agreement with you, member for Nelson. We have already commenced alternate methods of delivery on Groote Eylandt and Wadeye, particularly at Groote Eylandt, where the land council will be involved in the refurbishments. We are looking for local organisations with the capacity and ability to carry out these refurbishments. I will be looking more and more for that model.
What you said about some of the national safety requirements of the Commonwealth, particularly for smaller jobs, has been pointed out to be a point of escalation of costs and unnecessary. I do not want to see safety compromised on a work site. We need to be realistic. There are certain grades where the Commonwealth requirements kick in, and we could look at alternate methods of delivering those programs. I agree with you, member for Nelson, we have to look, particularly with refurbishments, at alternate ways of delivery and achieving value for money. I thank you for that suggestion.
You pointed to the status of houses in communities under a five-year lease. That is a real issue; there is no doubt about that. Both governments are exploring solutions to the expiration of the five-year leases, and voluntary leases will be pursued. It is my belief and desire we can negotiate extensions to those leases when people see the benefits of having housing and housing activity on communities. You are correct; a five-year lease is something we are moving on and we need to work with Aboriginal communities, landowners and land councils to resolve those issues.
I hope that answers most of your questions, member for Nelson. I thank you for your contribution.
The member for Braitling made constructive comments on the program. I have recognised his efforts on a number of occasions, both in this House and publicly. He is inspecting SIHIP, speaking to people on the ground; I appreciate that. He is doing his job, and that is what an opposition member should be doing. He is covering a large amount of territory.
He was concerned about fraud and overpayment – both he and the member for Port Darwin raised this. Nowhere in the Auditor-General’s report does he raise a spectre of fraud. He raises the issue of overpayment …
Mr Elferink: He remains silent on it, and that is the issue. He cannot go there.
Dr BURNS: You can remain silent on a number of things, member for Port Darwin, which does not necessarily mean anything. You choose to construct a story around what you feel he did not say. He is the Auditor-General. If he had any suspicion whatsoever of fraud he would have raised it. It is a bad reflection on the Auditor-General for you to say he has not raised it. That is his job. If there was a sniff of fraud the Auditor-General would be raising it.
Mr Elferink: No, that is the point - he cannot.
Dr BURNS: We will have to agree to disagree on this, member for Port Darwin.
He mentioned seven issues relating to overpayment, and I will truncate them: an absence of formal policies or guidelines; failure to ensure documentation in support of invoices and payroll rates were provided in a timely manner; incorrect calculation of payroll due to incorrect inclusion of oncosts; incorrect calculation of expenditure and the absence of adequate supporting documentation; the lack of proper approval for expenditure incurred; work on the Tennant Creek package being undertaken prior to the finalisation of the agreement; and a lack of supporting documents to enable an audit to be completed while some invoices submitted as part of a claim differed from invoices held on the alliance partners’ files. In conclusion he said:
- The issues identified have resulted in some overpayments being claimed by the alliances. All overpayments have been recovered by the department.
Mr Elferink: What does that tell you? Does that not send an alarm bell ringing in your head?
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: As I said to the member for Braitling …
Mr Elferink: Does that not concern you?
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin, people listened to you in silence. Please allow the minister to finish his comments.
Dr BURNS: The member for Braitling has placed a matter before the Australian Federal Police. He is not saying there has been fraud; he is saying there is a possibility, which is why he referred the matter to the AFP. During the last sittings I said to him: ‘Put it in the hands of the AFP’. He has reported his reply from the AFP, and we will see how things progress. That is where I will leave the matter of fraud.
The member for Braitling raised issues in relation to the memorandum of understanding signed in September 2007. My recollection, member for Braitling, is the federal election - you would know as you were a candidate; we will not go there today - was November 2007. The signing of the MOU occurred while Mal Brough was Minister for Indigenous Affairs ...
Mr Giles: You have to read the words of the MOU.
Dr BURNS: I am going to read the words of the MOU, member for Braitling.
Mr HAMPTON: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! I move an extension of time to enable the minister to complete his comments pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Dr BURNS: I thank my colleagues for their graciousness. Reading Paragraph 8 of the MOU signed in September 2007, it says:
- … a new contracting methodology based on a strategic alliance approach will be used …
There are no ifs, buts and maybes about that, member for Braitling. It says: ‘will be used’. The old gun to the head - he was still in the seat in September 2007, and MOUs do not pop out of the air. Mal Brough had the gun-to-the-head approach on the issue of alliance contracting. He was minister; his views are reflected in this MOU. That is the sort of bloke he was: ‘Sign up to what I want. I will have it my way or the highway’. Mal Brough - huff and puff Brough. We had to sign, that is all there is about it. It was his method of alliance contracting.
Member for Braitling, you have brought out some comments by my colleagues. We have endeavoured to make, and still endeavour to make, the alliance contracting method work. That is the context of my colleagues’ comments. I have laid it on the line. You tried to assert we had a choice; the MOU, under the dictatorship of Mal Brough, was it ‘will be used’. This MOU was signed during Mal Brough’s time as minister ...
Members interjecting.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: You have asked questions; you say $200m is missing. There is no missing $200m. The advice I have, member for Braitling, is the original MOU is for $793m, which is the one Mal Brough signed. The SIHIP component of that is: Commonwealth $527m, the Northern Territory government $100m, and there was a further top-up by the Commonwealth of $45m, bringing it to $672m.
The other element of the $793m was $279.2m in existing commitments. That is the composition of the MOU - $793m, and $672m of SIHIP. There is no missing $200m, just as there is no overspend with the BER. If you want a brief, I am more than happy to have the department brief you on what you think is the missing $200m. It has been adequately explained to me, member for Braitling, and I hope I have addressed your issue.
The member for Macdonnell raised a number of issues, at a personal and human level, about Narelle Palmer who lives at Santa Teresa. I am advised her unit is scheduled for refurbishment, and temporary accommodation options will be discussed with her while that is occurring. I would like to say there are more houses at Santa Teresa for Narelle; I take on board what the member for Macdonnell said about her difficulties and desires for her children. Unfortunately, there are no vacant houses at Santa Teresa at this time.
The member for Port Darwin used his time to talk about overpayments; I believe I have addressed that.
As ever, the effervescent member for Barkly told us several yarns from past experience; God bless him for that. I am always grateful for the enthusiasm of the member for Barkly. I know he has enjoyed getting across the length and breadth of the Territory. It is great he has been to Maningrida and has seen the subdivision occurring on the other side of the airport. This will be greatly appreciated by Indigenous people in Maningrida. It has grown leaps and bounds over the 30-odd years I have dealt with it and there is more work to do.
I thank all members for their contribution to the debate; I have tried to address issues raised. I commend the Auditor-General for the thoroughness of his report. I am certain there will be further debates on SIHIP. The Commonwealth Auditor-General is compiling a report into SIHIP and, no doubt, there will be more for us to examine, to learn from, and to implement on the basis of his recommendations.
It is a journey; a massive project with substantial issues from the start; I am not denying that. As minister with charge of it, I am endeavouring to get the best outcomes for Indigenous Territorians across the Northern Territory.
The need is great. I do not believe we will ever fulfil those needs in five or 10 years - we need to be committed to Indigenous housing for the next 20 or 30 years. It does not matter who is in power in the Northern Territory or Canberra - all sides of politics need to make a substantial commitment. By the same token, there are responsibilities on the Indigenous side, on the tenants’ side; people need to be educated, advised on tenancies, on sustaining tenancies, and their responsibilities as tenants. It is not going to happen overnight. The media has asked: ‘What are you going to do if there are still 10 or 12 people in a house?’ Arrears in housing are so large the situation is not going to turn around overnight. Even with 750 new houses across the Territory it is not going to substantially change. We need to manage the situation, to educate people and have a long-term approach to providing infrastructure.
Moreover, it is not just about the infrastructure of housing; it is about economic and social development for Indigenous people across the length and breadth of the Northern Territory. Housing, to some degree, is symptomatic. Arrears in education are also symptomatic; lack of employment is symptomatic. It is about engaging with Indigenous people and, Lord knows, they have had many changes in the last few years - the intervention, shires, SIHIP; people are reeling from the changes. As members of parliament we need to support and engage with people using all the contacts we have through this period of profound change.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend the Auditor-General’s report to the House. I ask the House to note the report.
Motion agreed to; report noted.
TABLED PAPER
Council of Territory Cooperation –
Annual Report
Council of Territory Cooperation –
Annual Report
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I table the Annual Report of the Council of Territory Cooperation for the period 14 October 2009 to 30 June 2010.
MOTION
Print Paper – Council of Territory Cooperation - Annual Report
Print Paper – Council of Territory Cooperation - Annual Report
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Note Paper - Council of Territory Cooperation - Annual Report
Note Paper - Council of Territory Cooperation - Annual Report
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report and that I have leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
National Broadband Network Update
National Broadband Network Update
Mr HAMPTON (Information, Communications and Technology Policy): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, today I give the Assembly an update on the National Broadband Network, or NBN. It is important for all members of this Assembly, and all Territorians, to understand what the NBN is, what it does, and how it will benefit the Territory. It is important for Territorians to understand, on 21 August, a real choice faces them between moving forward to an information and communications system fit for the 21st century, or one which sends us back to the 20th century – a choice between a Labor government which delivers a social environment and economic transformation for the nation, and the Liberal opposition that delivers a return to the failed era of bandaid broadband policies which left Australia lagging behind countries like Korea, Japan, Singapore and much of Europe. When Prime Minister Gillard talks about going forward or going back, the NBN is a perfect example of the choice facing Territorians on election day.
The Australian Labor Party has established NBN Co Limited to build and operate the NBN. The NBN is the biggest nation building project in Australia’s history. The NBN will be Australia’s first national wholesale only, open access, high-speed broadband platform. The NBN will deliver affordable high-speed broadband services to all Australians, no matter where they live or work. In the Territory, the NBN will deliver optical fibre to the homes and businesses of Territorians in Darwin and Palmerston, Nhulunbuy, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs, with speeds 1000 times faster than most people experience today. That is right: 1000 times faster.
The federal Labor Party today welcomed the announcement from NBN Co, CEO Mike Quigley, the network will be capable of offering turbocharge speeds of up to 1 GB per second, which is 1000 times faster than many people receive today. The NBN will also deliver Next Generation wireless services to 4% of Territorians, and satellite services to 100% of the Territory, with average data rates more than 20 times higher than most users of these technologies experience today.
The NBN means fast broadband access across the Northern Territory, however it not just the speed of the NBN that makes it so valuable; it is also the universal access and connection. Everyone, everywhere, receives it, which opens up a whole new world, economically, socially and environmentally for Australians and the Territory in particular.
In combination with the speed of the NBN, this is a transformative benefit for the nation because it allows a new level of applications, goods and services to be developed and delivered.
I said the best thing about NBN is everyone gets it; that is not strictly true. I apologise, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, and seek to correct that statement. Everyone gets the NBN, everyone except the opposition. The transition of the Australian and Territory economies to the digital age is something the opposition, both federally and in the Northern Territory, do not get. Building the NBN delivers over 25 000 new jobs nationally every year. In the Territory alone, the NBN and related investment will be more than $1bn over the next eight years. The benefits of the NBN extend far beyond the build phase. The real return starts after the building has finished, as Trevor Clarke points out in his Computerworld article: NBN 101: The Economic Argument. The savings the NBN will deliver justifies the investment.
The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the OECD, looked at what short-term cost savings would be needed in the electricity, healthcare, education and transport sectors to justify an investment in a fibre to the home network such as the NBN. On average, it found a cost saving of between 0.5% and 1.5% in each sector over 10 years resulting from a broadband investment would justify the cost. The US city of Seattle is an example of an economy benefiting from broadband, achieving a potential saving of up to $US1bn per year from its investment in its fibre network due to effects on the electricity and the transport sectors, along with the reduction in carbon emissions.
The NBN does not merely deliver savings. It is an economic super charger. In Australia, income derived over the Internet soared by 52% in the 2008-09 financial year to reach $123bn, which is up $42bn according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. This result correlated with statistics which showed an additional 25 000 businesses received …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am seeking guidance from the minister - I am trying to follow his statement. He made a correction on the record. There is a tradition in this House the minister does not deviate from the statement circulated the night before. I must have misread the statement last night; I do not see a correction. I am wondering if he could direct me to the page where the correction was.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can you be more specific? I do not think the minister was …
Mr ELFERINK: He said he was wrong about something and is correcting it. It is a long-standing tradition. We have had this argument before - statements circulated the night before should not have substantial deviations. I am wondering if I misread the statement.
Ms Lawrie: What standing order?
Mr ELFERINK: I am wondering if I have misread the statement last night …
Ms Lawrie: Do you have a standing order you want to quote?
Mr ELFERINK: Has he changed the record he circulated last night? That is the question.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Minister, has the statement significantly changed from the one circulated?
Mr HAMPTON: No, not that I am aware of. It was a figure of speech I was using which should be in the statement.
Madam SPEAKER: The minister is entitled to deviate slightly from the statement. Please continue.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! It would represent a substantial deviation if he made a correction in the document he is reading now which is not in his statement circulated last night. I am wondering if he could direct me to the page.
Mr HAMPTON: It was a figure of speech, Madam Speaker, which should be in the statement.
Mr Elferink: It is a figure of speech?
Madam SPEAKER: It is in the statement. Thank you. Please continue, minister.
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Can we seek clarification as a courtesy to assist us? Can the minister repeat what he said a few minutes ago in relation to correcting something? If we have the wrong end of the stick, so be it. If you could clarify this we would be very grateful, thank you.
Mr Elferink: What page is it on?
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, if you are able to repeat what you said and continue.
Mr HAMPTON: Yes, Madam Speaker. I said: the best thing about the NBN is that everyone gets it, however, that is not strictly true. I apologise and seek to correct that statement. Everyone gets the NBN, except the opposition.
Mr Elferink: That was being cute. Okay. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: There were no corrections. Thank you. Please continue, minister.
Mr HAMPTON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will continue.
That is where the NBN really delivers; 27% of all businesses are now using the Internet to generate business.
As one recent World Bank study of 120 countries found, for every 10 percentage point increases in the penetrations of broadband services there is an increase in economic growth of 1.3 percentage points. Global management consulting firm McKinsey and Company similarly concluded a 10% increase in broadband household penetration produces a rise of up to 1.4% in GDP growth. Access Economics, in an Australian-focused report, found the nett present value of benefits of smart technologies on a fibre-optic network to 2018 would be between $35bn and $80bn.
As a nation, both in return on investment and in savings, the NBN is an economic booster according to the OECD, the World Bank, and numerous other countries which have already done it. It was well worth spending the money. When the nation is doing well, the NT is doing well. However, Mr Abbott does not want the nation to have it and, worse, the CLP does not want the Territory to have the NBN.
Opposition finance spokesman, Andrew Robb, told ABC radio a Coalition in power would see the government’s fibre to the home broadband network halted and either sold off or incorporated into its broadband vision where appropriate. What policy is Mr Abbott and the CLP offering instead? Their policy is thin on detail; Tony Abbott’s broadband policy is to shut down the NBN and replace it with a grab bag of policies which would consign Australia to the digital dark ages, destroy jobs, and risk our economy for decades. In summary, it is cheap and dirty.
It relies on outdated technology, ADSL, wireless and hybrid fibre for the last mile delivery to the premise. Consequently, it would provide a slower speed to the premise. On average, due to the limits of the technology, it cannot provide the speed, coverage and affordable prices offered by the NBN. It guarantees no connections, instead relying on the private sector; a plan which failed for 12 years under the former Coalition government.
Their policy indicates it will only make available high-speed broadband. NBN, by contrast, guarantees connection of 93% of premises to high-speed broadband. The difference is they have no connection guarantee; they guarantee nothing. It includes no optical fibre to the home. Upgrading old copper is just shifting deck chairs on a sinking ship. What do you get in the way of broadband if you are more than 5 km away from a telephone exchange under this policy? The answer is nothing.
Fibre-optic cables future proof capabilities are far superior to the existing technologies proposed by the Coalition policy. This is simply the physical nature of the technologies, and the Coalition already had 18 failed broadband policies when they were in government and this 19th is more of the same - back to the future. The policy is based on the premise competition will drive infrastructure development. However, by definition, it will require duplication of infrastructure by the telecommunication providers to be truly competitive, creating not one monopoly, but a network of regional monopolies.
As Internet Industry Association Chief Executive, Peter Coroneos said, the opposition’s plan fell significantly short of the NBN because the private sector has had time to deliver broadband and have only made the decision to do so where it makes commercial sense. Where it does not make commercial sense – Darwin, Palmerston, Nhulunbuy, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs …
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I draw attention to the state of the House for this very important statement.
Madam SPEAKER: A quorum is required. Ring the bells. A quorum is present.
Mr HAMPTON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Coalition’s 19th policy in 12 years is another failure. It will shut down the NBN and destroy 25 000 jobs the NBN would create in each year of construction. It does not achieve structural reform of the telecommunications sector, and gives no indication how a Coalition government would deal with the existing acknowledged monopoly position of Telstra.
This policy is a return to the failed era of bandaid broadband policies which left Australia lagging behind countries like Korea, Japan, Singapore, and much of Europe. It denies homes and businesses in 1000 towns across Australia including Darwin, Palmerston, Katherine, Nhulunbuy, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs access to fibre technology. Tony Abbott and the Coalition do not understand the technology of the future and cannot be trusted to make the decisions necessary to build a modern Australian economy.
Telecommunications analyst Paul Budde said there is no vision, no leadership with this proposal; it is just a patchwork of old broadband technologies which will only ever be upgraded if the market believes there is a commercial reason for it. The current plan will take us back to 2007, perhaps a little further.
Macquarie Telecom head of regulatory and government affairs, Matt Healy, said in The Australian on 11 August 2010:
- It’s just entrenching the old-world way of Australia’s telco sector, which is all about wringing the copper network dry and maintaining the status quo with the hope that the market will work it out for itself. It’s not good for competition and it’s not good for consumers.
What did this retread policy give us the first time around? When Labor was elected in 2007, Australia had broadband 35 times slower than the fastest nation. Australia was left languishing as a broadband backwater in broadband take-up, speeds and prices. This model has given us huge price and access disadvantages in the Northern Territory, even where the fibre is in the ground.
An example of this is a connection costing a business $2000 in Sydney costs $18 000 in Darwin. Going back to this model represents a risk to Australia’s economic future and those communities across the country crying out for better broadband.
NBN Co Limited has already indicated satellite services for rural and remote areas will be made available early in the implementation schedule. The opposition’s announcement for remote areas passes itself off as the same for NBN; wireless and satellite. Wireless is well suited for low-density areas where coverage can be provided cheaply, or for mobility purposes. There will always be a requirement for both wireless and optic technologies. Optic fibre is more suited to high-speed large volume data transfer.
The issue is what mix will deliver the most benefits to the Australian economy. With only $6bn in their entire broadband kitty, it leaves the opposition’s claims it can deliver the same as the NBN to the bush looking bruised to say the best. The Australian Telecommunications User Group, ATUG, which represents the interests of businesses around Australia, said the digital divide will increase if Abbott’s backward-looking policy is ever implemented.
If elected, Tony Abbott will rip out around $1bn of investment in the Northern Territory over the next few years. It is not only the NBN he is ripping out, but the jobs for sparkies, line layers, hardware retailers, and ITC professionals in the Territory the NBN delivers as well. Tony Abbott is going to rip out computers in schools, as we heard today in Question Time. He is going to rip out e-Health initiatives which help Territorians, particularly those in remote communities; rip out trade training the industry desperately needs; and rip out the economic growth which depends on the NBN.
I compare the negativity and ‘cannot do’ attitude of Mr Abbott and CLP with what the Labor Party has achieved in three short years. This includes work on this massive project which is already under way – it is being rolled out as we speak. Under Stage 1 of the priority roll-out in Tasmania the first services have been switched on in the communities of Midway Point, Smithton and Scottsdale. The first building blocks of the NBN on the mainland are also under way. Under the NBN Regional Backbone Blackspots Program, around 6000 km of new competitive fibre-optic backbone links are being rolled out in regional Australia. Over 1200 km of fibre has been laid, and these backbone links will benefit approximately 400 000 people in over 100 000 regional locations. This part of the roll-out will also create around 1000 full-time jobs. Much of this roll-out has been in the Northern Territory.
NBN Co has also announced 19 second release locations, including Casuarina. Construction in Casuarina connecting homes and businesses to the NBN will kick-off in the first half of 2011. NBN Co has signed the heads of agreement with Telstra to use existing Telstra pits and equipment. Labor has separated Telstra from the wholesale of services while retailing those services at the same time, eliminating unfair trade practices from the market.
Labor has relieved Telstra of driving the Universal Service Obligation, allowing Telstra to pursue its commercial targets unfettered by the noose around shareholder value the Liberal government left when it sold off Telstra. Labor has begun the process of securing Next Generation satellite services to deliver broadband to remote and regional Australia, fixing isolation problems the Liberals left.
Now, at two minutes to midnight, two weeks before the federal election, the opposition copies Labor’s solution for the bush; however, they leave off the implementation plan. They cannot say how they are going to do it; how many towers, how many satellites, where the fibre is going to be pulled out. They failed with similar models 18 times. This bits-and-pieces policy the opposition has trotted out is doomed to similar failure. That is why they are so angry. The NBN shines a light too brightly on the Liberal Party’s failure to deliver. They were in government for 12 years, 18 failed policies, no national broadband infrastructure and no viable alternative. The NBN, by contrast, is up and running and being rolled out across the country, opening up access, bringing down prices, and opening up economic opportunity in the digital age.
This is not just the opinion of this government. Leading US technologist and one of the creators of the Internet, Larry Smarr, likened Labor’s plan to the 1956 decision by President Dwight Eisenhower to build a publicly-funded interstate highway system; a nation building project with a value unable to be calculated. He believes the NBN can show the US the right way to do this. What do industry experts say about Mr Abbott’s cheap and nasty alternative? Internet Industry Association Chief Executive, Mr Peter Coroneos, said the opposition’s plan fell significantly short of the NBN. On Mr Abbott’s commitment to scrap the NBN, Primus Telcom, CEO Ravi Bhartia said the opposition was misinformed, and totally misunderstood the NBN situation. ‘Consumers want it, businesses want it and industry wants it as well’, is what he said. ‘They are damaging their own credibility and showing their ignorance’, he also said.
Mr Abbott, in his debt and deficit mantra, says we cannot afford an NBN. This is not true. The Governor of the Reserve Bank, Glenn Stevens, said recently there is no nett public debt in the country, in contrast to much of the developed world. The most recent figure from Canberra was a peak of 5% or 6% of GDP - far from being the highest in history it is closest to the lowest.
In fact, we cannot afford not to build the NBN. Going back to the future with Mr Abbott’s bits-and-pieces policy condemns the nation to the backwaters of the last century. The problem is not affordability of the NBN; it is with Mr Abbott’s $6bn joke of a broadband policy. To ensure comparable capability in the international arena, the proposed solution under the opposition’s policy would require ongoing regular upgrades over the same period. This means the costings the opposition released are entirely unbelievable. Because we make the leap into the digital era, we always need fast, cheap broadband. Mr Abbott’s bits and pieces will not do.
The most fundamental thing Mr Abbott and the CLP do not understand is the NBN is more about surfing the net. As Trevor Clarke noted in Computerworld, the planned or proposed services which will be delivered across the NBN cover such diverse areas as the Internet Protocol Television, or IPTV, to consumers and other entertainment venues; phone services such as a Voice Over IP; healthcare, including palliative care patients who need 24/7 monitoring; education; smart transport systems; smart electricity grids; environmental monitoring such as water usage and irrigation; and scientific research projects.
Some of these may use mobile broadband connections and wireless technologies; however, most require extensive and universal fibre network to make them possible. It is a choice of going forward or going back. From the opposition’s attempt to make fun about this, judging by their support of Mr Abbott and his broadband policy, it is clear they do not understand it.
Madam Speaker, I commend the NBN to the House. I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I am surprised the opposition does not want to participate in this debate because the opportunities technology brings to business and the education system are far-reaching, broad-ranging and particularly pertinent to the needs of the Territory. I am truly amazed the opposition is not prepared to respond. It is disappointing; this is a house of debate. Whether they like what we say in our statements or not, it invites them to put an alternate view and argument. The fact they are not responding shows they have no faith in Tony Abbott’s election proposal.
I am supporting our Minister for ICT Policy and the National Broadband Network statement he provided to the House today. The $43bn National Broadband Network is a transformational project for our nation; transformational for our economy, for education and, fundamentally, for service delivery. It is a project which will deliver affordable and high-speed broadband to all Australians, up to 1000 times faster than the current services.
Those of us in the Chamber on the wrong side of 40 do not quite grasp the opportunities this delivers as much as those around the 20-year-old mark. Those with teenagers, and older, in our homes understand the younger generations totally grasp the opportunities of broadband and what these faster speeds deliver to them. This is exciting, it is transformational, and I congratulate our minister for bringing this debate to our Chamber.
We live in a digital age, and businesses are adapting rapidly to the challenges this digital age provides. To tap into a super-fast broadband to provide the economic infrastructure our national economy and our businesses need for the future is, I believe, truly transformational. Business through the Internet is growing; it has doubled in the 2008-09 financial year; it is estimated to be worth approximately $123bn to the national economy. Over the same time, an extra 25 000 businesses took orders over the Internet, despite current statistics showing only 27% of business use the Internet to generate business.
The National Broadband Network opens up the Internet to businesses across Australia, guaranteeing super fast Internet access. This is going to generate enormous opportunity for our economy. This project is important to the Territory. To increase Internet access and affordability to Territorians in the bush will transform opportunities in our remote and regional parts of the Territory, including in our key urban growth centres of Darwin and Palmerston, Alice Springs, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Nhulunbuy. It will increase educational opportunities, transform service delivery, support initiatives like e Health, and support business initiatives.
I attended COAG in Darwin and witnessed a presentation from our Department of Health on e Health; how that transfers accurate, up-to-date information on a client’s health regardless of where they are. It cuts through what were previously delays in diagnosis and mistakes in pharmaceutical supplies. E Health has to be one the most exciting advances in the delivery of primary healthcare and is particularly important in the Territory. We have vast distances for health service delivery, and a population base moving in and out of remote and regional centres for health access and delivery, and also people who are mobile in and out of the Territory. Many people come to the Territory from elsewhere. So, e Health is fantastic, and to get this fast speed broadband is critical to improving e Health.
It is important for local jobs. The national broadband network is estimated to generate $1bn over the next eight years in the Territory.
Casuarina has been announced as one of 19 second release sites for fast speed broadband in Australia. I congratulate the federal government, and our minister for ICT Policy, for the foresight of that announcement. Construction is due to commence next year, which will support hundreds of jobs. This significant project, estimated to generate $1bn over the next eight years and support hundreds of jobs, is at risk. It is at risk today because if Tony Abbott is elected Prime Minister on 21 August the project is axed - a $1bn project for our economy, hundreds of jobs at risk, facing the Coalition axe - the Abbott axe.
We have already seen the benefits of broadband in the Territory. The NBN regional black spot program has seen fibre optic laid across the Territory. That project also supported hundreds of jobs. The project highlights the stark difference between the Prime Minister and the federal Coalition. Due to the inaction of former Coalition governments and 18 failed policies, it left behind a broadband network approximately 35 times slower than the fastest nation. As a developed nation, a mainstream economy, we were 35 times slower than the fastest nation in the world. It is a shameful legacy, and we face going back to that shameful past.
The Labor government has a plan to take Australia forward with a truly national high-speed broadband solution. Those of us who followed this debate at a national level recognise how hard it has been for the federal government to negotiate its way through the business parameters and settings to deliver this broadband network; however, it has done it. It has delivered on its commitment, and it is rolling out as we speak. It is affordable for families; affordable for business and provides a service 1000 times faster than what is available today, at 1 GB per second.
In stark contrast, the opposition is in yesterday’s time warp. Its policy goes nowhere near the national broadband planned. It has been described by experts in the field as half-baked. It does not guarantee access across the nation. It does not compare to the super-fast broadband being rolled out by Labor. It is old technology; copper wire which cannot be upgraded, not optical fibre, which is future proof. It relies on the private sector, a policy we know has failed regional and remote Australia and will continue to fail because the cost benefits are not there when rolling out to the more geographically challenged areas of our nation.
They say to the private sector: ‘It is up to you, boys; we will be hands-off as a government nationally’. ‘It is up to you’ will mean no delivery into regional and remote Australia. Shame on the CLP if they are going to support the Tony Abbott plan! They have not spoken tonight, and we will be listening closely because anything said by the CLP will go straight out to businesses, families, and remote areas which totally rely on fast-speed broadband access.
The Coalition said it will shut down the national broadband network. That would slash approximately 25 000 jobs for every year of the roll-out. One thing which will clearly define a nation moving forward versus a nation going backwards is the National Broadband Network and the policy differences between the federal Labor government and the opposition. Do we move forward as a nation? Do we have access? Do we step up to the plate? Do we become globally competitive in an area for individuals and business? Do we head backwards? It will be a stark choice on 21 August.
Madam Speaker, I commend the Minister for ICT Policy for pointing this out to Territorians today.
Mr KNIGHT (Business and Employment): Madam Speaker, I support the statement of the ICT minister. He provides a clear choice in relation to the broadband network for Territorians; a choice to leap forward to an information and communication system fit for the 21st century, or go backwards with Tony Abbott’s plan for an alternative broadband network. It is a choice between Labor, which delivers a social, environmental and economic transformation for all Territorians, and the Liberal opposition, which delivers a return to the failed era of its broadband policies.
It is a choice between a world-class national broadband system, or the string and-tin approach the Liberals have put up. The Liberals want Australia to lag behind countries such as Korea, Japan, Singapore and much of Europe; they want Territorians to be left behind for the future. It is a choice between the biggest nation building project in Australia’s history, a truly visionary project, or a second-class service in which Territorians will continue to pay more for less service.
The National Broadband Network will be Australia’s first national wholesale-only open access high-speed broadband platform. It will encourage competition by retail providers and reduce the cost of broadband services. We will see affordable high-speed broadband services to all Australians, wherever they live and work. It means, for key urban areas, a massive difference. In Darwin, Palmerston, Nhulunbuy, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs we are surviving on 25 MG per second DSL. Labor is proposing 1 GB - 1000 megabytes - which is a massive difference from the current 25 MG per second. Do we get a revolutionary change with the Liberal plan - their real action on broadband? We had 24 MG per second; and we get 24 MG per second under the Liberals. A revolutionary change, which is their vision for technology for the future!
For the areas which shift from 25 MG per second to 1 GB per second it is a massive jump, and covers 90% of Australia with high-speed broadband. In business you are always looking for the competitive advantage and, as Minister for Trade, I understand being internationally competitive is vital also. Why would a pro-business party, the Liberals, want to stop business in Australia from competing internationally? Speed of communication, speed of business and service delivery are the competitive advantages businesses are looking for and the government is providing.
Business is also looking at lower cost service delivery. Providing high-speed broadband reduces the cost to operate in the global scene, and makes business internationally competitive.
The Liberals are proposing nothing; the status quo. We are looking decades into the future and the Liberals, instead of technology for the future, are going to hamstring business, our students, our social networking opportunities for all Australians, our lifestyle; going backwards with our broadband. They are going to maintain the monopolies; there is no mention of what they will do with the Telstra broadband monopoly. They want a patchwork of private sector monopolies to commence, which will not reduce costs.
The Liberals want the private sector to create monopolies around broadband services; the government is proposing vital infrastructure. In the past, roads provided the economic lifting of infrastructure. Now it is telecommunications, ITC, which provides the opportunity for trade; business can reach overseas and be competitive and viable. The Liberals, and Tony Abbott, are stopping business achieving that. He is anti-business and anti-competitive, and is sending people backwards.
Labor proposes to build the infrastructure and wholesale for providers of Internet services at a reasonable price, and create competition in the marketplace. The Abbott plan is piecemeal; it is cheap, it is nasty, and does not cover Australia with an effective broadband system. Small towns across the Northern Territory will gain nothing from the broadband plan of the Liberals. Under Labor, those towns will receive a massive increase in the broadband network, as will the cattle stations.
I have lived in many of those little towns and know it is hard to do business and communicate through dial-up. It is hard to stay in touch with business and families. It is frustrating. We have all been there over the last decade or so; we are all accustomed to using the Internet. Even in parliament the system can be slow.
Imagine that under the Liberal plan - it would be the norm. That is the future they see - slow broadband. Labor is proposing something 1000 times faster than it is now. It is an incredible difference. What that means for business is mind-boggling; the volumes which can be pushed through the system. It provides for television channels, and other forms of communication, to come through the fibre link into your home. It is revolutionary; something we have not experienced in Australia which will take us to a new level of business viability and ability to communicate with Australia and the world.
We are flabbergasted with where the Liberals are going. The Arnhem Land fibre project was an 800 km, $35m optic-fibre link which provided high-speed communications into Arnhem Land. That made a massive difference for the nine communities linked between Jabiru and Nhulunbuy. The project was funded through a partnership between the Territory government, Telstra, Rio Tinto Alcan and the Northern Land Council. Schools along the route jumped from a typical 250 KB satellite link to a 20 MB service. That has changed the way they communicate, the way they do business, and the way their students can access information, reaching out to the worldwide web and bringing information into schools in some of the most remote areas.
Wadeye, in my electorate, has optic fibre coming to the clinics, the police stations, and households. It has changed the way people are able to live; to communicate with friends and family. It is the technology of the future, the tool for our lives for the future.
I am interested to hear from the other side why they accept this cheap and nasty proposal from their colleagues in Canberra. Tony Abbott could not answer some of the most basic questions on his own policy. It has been condemned by business and professionals as sending the country backwards if the Liberals win on 21 August. It will end one of the biggest projects in Australia and the greatest opportunity for business, families, students, academics and professionals to have high-speed broadband in their home and work.
It is a crucial subject; I hope the other side tell us where they are going. I have seen how technology has revolutionised the bush, particularly the e Health electronic records in Katherine. You need the links, and that has to come from broadband. You need the links for people to use, and then we will see massive social and economic changes in the remotest parts of the Northern Territory and Australia. It provides an opportunity I hope we do not lose because we will be sending the country backwards. We are going to hamstring Northern Territory business and our young people.
Madam Speaker, I congratulate the minister on his statement. It is a very important statement. We will see what happens on 21 August and where we head with ICT.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I say at the outset only the most extreme of socialists would welcome this nonsense policy by the Rudd government, picked up by the Gillard government. This is a crazy plan. We have had three decades of privatising telecommunications in Australia. I grew up in a post office in central Queensland. In those days it was run by the Postmaster General, the PMG. Many people will remember the good old PMG. It was privatised, became Telecom, and successive governments, whether Labor or Liberal at the federal level, were behind the privatisation of telecommunications in Australia.
The reason was quite simple. Back in the old days the commercial benefit of telecommunications was not there. It required government to step in and provide those services. Over time, more and more players came into the market and today there are hundreds of businesses in the telecommunications sector. We see, in one fell swoop, Mr Rudd and Ms Gillard saying they want to renationalise telecommunications in Australia. They will spend $43bn putting fibre-optic cable into the ground to be owned by a government organisation, and $43bn is more than the total book value of Telstra. It is a huge lump of money, and when I say the government is trying to renationalise telecommunication services that is an undeniable, undisputable fact.
If the government was sincere about pushing telecommunications into the marketplace and allowing market forces to operate, they would have tendered that work to players capable of doing it and letting them get on with the job.
No, this federal government thinks it can do it better than Telstra, better than the other players out there, and you have to question that decision. Look at their insulation scheme, for instance. For governments, what could be simpler than putting insulation pink batts in the roofs of houses? We have seen hundreds of houses burn down. Hundreds of thousands of houses need to be reinspected and tested. We have seen businesses go to the wall. We have seen people killed under the home insulation scheme, and now they want to spend $43bn of Australians’ money renationalising telecommunications. They cannot even put insulation in the roofs of houses. What an absolute and utter joke, and what a fraud on the Australian people!
It is interesting the minister should make his statement on the National Broadband Network today considering Telstra has been in the media over its falling share price saying, in a large part, it is due to falling sales of fixed phone lines in homes. Why would that be? In the last 10 years fixed lines in homes have reduced by 10% across the country. People are taking fixed lines out of their homes because they are using mobile phones. They are choosing mobility over fixed lines. They own a mobile phone and say: ‘What is the point of having a fixed line in the house?’ They are cancelling their fixed line services; however, Telstra has to maintain those millions and millions and millions of kilometres of fixed line around the country. That is very expensive.
The government wants to replicate that; put fixed lines for computers into homes - high speed broadband, fibre-optic cable into homes, irrespective of the evidence showing people are chasing mobility; they want to take their laptops with them. It is only when I come into parliament I plug my computer into a fixed line. I have a USB wireless modem, and most members will have those gadgets you plug into your computer. It does not matter where you are, provided you have signal, you can take your computer to the mall at lunchtime and tap away; you can sit in your back yard and tap away on your computer; you do not have to be inside your house to use your computer.
This government, for some reason, ignores all the social trends, ignores what people are doing and says: ‘No, we are going to spend $43bn of your money on telecommunications most of the community is moving away from’. It is saying: ‘We are going to spend $43bn of your money digging up your front yard and your driveway putting fibre optic into your home’. That is what it is about.
The government has not mentioned costs for the user. Apart from digging up your front yard, boring holes into your walls to put in this new fibre optic, what are the costs people will be expected to pay? Downloading at speeds of 100 MG per second will cost a minimum of $4000 per premises to bring the technology past the front door so families can benefit from that 100 MG per second download. That is a large amount of money. Most people would not spend $4000 on a computer these days. The price of computers has decreased significantly; that is a large premium for people to pay. Most people would be reluctant to pay so what is the point of it?
Government would be better off beefing up the current wireless services and making them more accessible across Australia. The government says 93% of Australian homes will have fibre optic-to the door. What 93% of Australian homes will be covered?
Yesterday in Question Time the member for Stuart was saying how wonderful the NBN was, and talking about his constituents. It is very unlikely his constituents are going to have fibre optic cable connected to their homes - very unlikely. You will find the 93% of Australians mentioned are located in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide, and maybe Canberra and Perth. If we are lucky, a few dozen homes in Darwin will be connected to high-speed broadband, not people in remote parts of Central Australia. That is a fraud, and to suggest Indigenous people in remote communities are going to have fibre-optic cable connected to their homes is a joke. You have to wonder about the homes they would connect to.
I have listened to debates on SIHIP. The government has already spent approximately $200m and delivered 11 houses. If that is the bang the federal government is getting for its buck, what sort of bang will we get for the $43bn it is throwing into this white elephant called the NBN?
The Rudd government policy is an absolute joke and utterly emblematic of the problems which have faced this government since its election in 2007. Everything it touched turned to custard: the green loan scheme, the insulation scheme, SIHIP, the waste of money with the stimulus spending; the BER scheme; money wasted everywhere. The list is endless. Where is GroceryWatch; where is FuelWatch? Everything the government touches is a failure, and now it is going to spend $43bn on telecommunications. An industry which is enormously fast paced and constantly changing is being run by a government stuck in the past which wants to renationalise telecommunications – wound the clock back on 30 years of government policy and said: ‘No, we are going to renationalise telecommunications’.
The government has turned the clock back further than Paul Keating and Bob Hawke. Keating and Hawke were big on privatising Telstra; they could see the need for competition in the marketplace, they wanted competition and pushed that way.
We now have a new, extreme socialist government which wants to renationalise telecommunications, turn its back on all the hard work and pain former Labor governments wore over many years. This is complete madness. It is complete madness people in the Chamber are welcoming this crazy decision.
I can understand people in central Sydney, central Melbourne, or central Brisbane saying in parliament this is great; this is fantastic for our electorate. However, not in the Northern Territory! This scheme delivers nothing to the Northern Territory. It is typical of what has become a hallmark of Labor: all promises and no delivery.
‘Do not listen to what they say; look at what they do’, is what we say on this side of the Chamber. There is a litany of failure, both at federal and Territory level. If the Territory government has any involvement in this, I wonder what chance it has of going anywhere, because every time this Territory government touches anything, it turns to custard and goes pear-shaped. What a disgrace it is. The current federal government is not much better than the Territory government. It has proven itself to be a joke from Day 1.
People are chasing mobility - mobile phones, iPhones. What I can do on an iPhone is one hundred times more than I could do on a PC five years ago. I can receive e-mails, my contacts, send messages, get onto Facebook and Twitter, post blogs; all sorts of things on a phone! In a few years’ time, people will be watching television and movies on their phone. If government put the same effort into mobility, into wireless networks, and allowed people to access information in a mobile way, it would be better suited to the way Australia is heading.
Telstra is jumping up and down because people are cancelling fixed lines in their houses. If this is not a clear indication of where the future is going, I do not know what is. For the Business minister to say this is good for business, goodness me, you can understand why this government is so moribund of ideas; such a pathetic government - such a shambolic government. If you believe renationalising telecommunications is good for business, you have another think coming.
You should talk to former Prime Minister Keating. Talk to former Prime Minister Hawke – a good union man who stood up for the worker. A bit crazy, however, he had much better ideas on telecommunications than the current government. Both Hawke and Keating were reformists as far as telecommunications went, and did a damn good job. Julia Gillard and the current government want to undo all that work and renationalise telecommunications. This will leave the Territory, and Australia, miles behind the rest of the world in years to come. It is a white elephant; it is a disgrace.
This should not be supported, and I pray, in two weeks time when we go to an election, Australians will see through this total scam and do to Julia Gillard what she did to Kevin Rudd. That is what Australians should do because these people are nuts, and are supported by nut cases in the Northern Territory. You only have to watch them celebrate this announcement and say it is great for the Territory. Goodness me! Do you read anything, do you look at anything, do you talk to people, and do you understand what people are thinking?
To say this is a great thing defies logic. I do not know what is happening to our representatives from the Labor side. Clare Martin and Syd Stirling must be so embarrassed at this point in time, seeing this joke of a government supporting this nonsense; trying to gild the lily. How can you support a government which kills people when putting batts in roofs, and which cannot maintain the GroceryWatch site? It was going to reduce fuel prices by FuelWatch. Where has that gone? Green loans? All these things are a complete disaster. It has been disaster, after disaster, after disaster.
Madam Speaker, for this government to support the federal government is atrocious, and should be seen for what it is.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): What an extraordinary performance, Madam Speaker. I can understand why ex-Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser said he would resign from the Liberal Party because it was not the same party he joined. The Liberal Party has gone to the extreme right wing and sees the government in Canberra as a socialist government. I understand you have not been out of Australia; you have never lived outside Australia. If the Labor Party in Australia is a socialist party, I have news for you. Take a trip to Europe and find out what real socialist parties are. It is amazing you are sliding to the extreme right wing of the political spectrum. You talk about socialist governments in Australia. Your candidate in Alice Springs talks about ‘reds under the beds’, ‘sold Australia to the Chinese’, and ‘they do not have to invade us by weapons because they bought Australia’. This is a ridiculous statement.
I have invested in an iPad. Can I receive a wireless signal from the library - it is only about 10 m away? I cannot. Why? Because the technology is not there. I can only receive a signal because I have a Telstra mini-card, which makes it a glorified mobile phone.
Senator Scullion said his dream was to drive down the Stuart Highway and have telephone reception all the way from Darwin to Adelaide. I have driven up and down the Stuart Highway and the reception I received was patchy; it is not good. If the technology was there reception would be good. Today we have seen an attempt by the CLP, and the Liberal Party, to avoid the harsh reality that unless you spend money you are not going to get a state-of-the-art telecommunications system in Australia which will improve the lives of Australians, improve business and propel us into the 21st century - the real 21st century, not back to the future; not back to the 1900s dial-up.
The member for Fong Lim suggested the reason Telstra has lost money is because everyone switched to mobile phones. That is true. However, he failed to say Telstra has to maintain a network of copper wires all mobile phone companies use. The broadband system delivered today to most houses also uses the copper wire, which has extreme limitations.
If you really want an electronic revolution the way to do it is with optic fibre. The information you can send through optic fibre is enormous compared to what you can send wirelessly; wireless has its limitations. The technology is not there yet, and you cannot have a hot spot combination of copper wire, wireless transmission and fibre.
My portfolios include Health, Primary Industries, and Resources and all want to use information in real time. To give an example, pastoralists want to monitor their fields and animals not by travelling hundreds of kilometres every day but by being at home and monitoring the feeding and watering stations and, at the same time, weighing the cattle. We have this in some places already, but it has limitations. The department of Resources wants to use real time information for exploration, storing information and disseminating information.
The real challenge is in Health. Because of the tyranny of distance, high-speed broadband makes services provided to Territorians much easier if you can do it in real time, efficiently and fast. High-speed broadband makes services like tele-psychiatry and counselling possible, along with rapid diagnosis analysis of X-rays and other tests. The possibilities are endless, and the benefits too high to be risked by Tony Abbott’s sick and nasty policy. Tony Abbott wants to slash innovation and slash services. Rural and remote Australia deserves better than this policy. He has told Australian people he will slash e-Health spending along with super clinics. It is a joke!
Tony Abbott’s is seeking a return to the good old days when GPs were in plentiful supply and would altruistically conduct after-hour visits and bulkbill - that does not happen any more. The reality is different. We need super clinics in the Territory because we do not have enough GPs. Half the number of GPs per 100 000 population do not bulkbill. You have to pay $85, they do not operate after hours, and the pressure placed on the RDH emergency department, and other hospital emergency departments, is incredible. This pressure will increase as our population grows and ages.
We need e-Health services because we want to provide the right diagnosis, the right treatment, at the right time for our patients. It saves time, it saves lives and it should be delivered. The Gillard government is 100% committed. Tony Abbott does not care for it and I am not surprised. Tony Abbott, as a former Health minister, slashed $1bn from the health system and failed to understand the need to train enough doctors and nurses to treat the increasing needs of our ageing population. We do not have enough doctors or nurses because Tony Abbott did not put enough money into training.
The Northern Territory and Australian governments have recognised the importance of e-Health in improving communication between healthcare providers to reduce the possibility of people falling between the cracks. As stated previously, the eHealthNT Shared Electronic Health Record and other e-Health initiatives are only possible where there is widespread use of electronic health records system at the point of care.
To this end the Northern Territory government, assisted in the early stages with financial assistance from the Australian government, accelerated the roll-out of the Primary Care Information System, or PCIS, across its network of remote healthcare centres at a cost of $7.5m over three years from 1 July 2007, including $2.2m from the Australian government to achieve implementation at 54 health centres spread across the Territory. PCIS, and the eHealthNT Shared Electronic Health Record, provide our clinicians working in the most remote communities in the Territory with streamlined access to up-to-date patient information and real time clinical decision support resources.
In the Territory there are now more than 37 000 people registered for this service, including patients of non-government health services across the borders in the APY lands, northern South Australia and the East Kimberleys in Western Australia. Queensland and Western Australia want to be part of the system and to copy it because they find it very efficient.
Terry Mills has not told us where he stands on this important threshold issue. He has not told us if he supports Tony Abbott’s plan to slash e-Health.
The Northern Territory government has invested $2.5m over the last three financial years into upgrading critical ICT infrastructure, and we will be investing a further $850 000 in 2010-11. To improve medication management in hospitals, the government has invested $720 000 over three years from 1 July 2007, including $220 000 from the Australian government to implement MedChart, an advanced electronic medication management system at Royal Darwin Hospital, Katherine Hospital and Gove District Hospital. In 2010-11, $150 000 has been invested to implement MedChart at Alice Springs and Tennant Creek hospitals.
As mentioned in my earlier statement to the Legislative Assembly, an exciting opportunity to build on the Territory’s existing eHealth capability has been provided by the Northern Territory government’s successful application for funding under the Australian government’s Digital Regions Initiative. The Health eTowns Program will deliver dedicated high-speed broadband capacity to health, education and training services in 17 of the 20 Territory growth towns. The Digital Regions Initiative involves a total investment of $16.4m, with the Territory government funding $9.4m and the Australian government funding $7m.
The effects of the projects being undertaken in health under the Health eTowns Program will not be limited to these towns; they will flow on to health centres in smaller communities across the Territory and across the healthcare sector generally.
The Telehealth implementation project is a key project under the Health eTowns Program. The project will use a range of technology to provide patients and clinicians with access to specialist services remotely. It will also assist patient recovery by enabling patients in hospital to remain connected with their families in remote communities.
Telehealth is a rapidly developing area of healthcare where health information is transferred through the phone, the Internet or other networks for the purpose of consulting, case-conferencing or performing remote medical procedures or examination. I was very impressed when I visited the oncology unit and found a communication room where people in Darwin can communicate instantly with people in Adelaide to confer about a diagnosis, a treatment, even to remotely examine a person for treatment.
Another exciting initiative is that Royal Darwin Hospital has developed – this was reported in the newspaper recently - bar-coding people when there is an accident. We have developed a system to communicate instantly with clinicians, nurses or ambulance officers when they attend an accident or place of disaster, where we can put identification codes on people and each and every person can be managed by a hospital not only here in Darwin, also in Perth or Brisbane. We have worked with people in this area in case there is a need for evacuation.
No one denies a doctor must make quick decisions in times of crisis and nurses must be deployed very quickly. That can happen - especially in the Territory where we have the tyranny of distance - only if we have a robust, modern up-to-date electronic transmission system which can transmit data instantly, efficiently and of high quality. What has been proposed by the Coalition opposition is something even the industry itself has criticised severely. It has labelled it as a system more appropriate to the 1970s and 1980s than 2010; they applaud the federal government’s proposal for a fibre-optic system throughout Australia.
Health is critical to all Territorians. We do not have many doctors in the Territory, and many people live in remote communities. We need to not only provide and assess information quickly, but also have this information at hand irrespective of the location of the person. Only a modern system that can withstand the pressure of use can provide this.
My department has both a mobile and regionally dispersed workforce. Given this, the combination of electronic access to information, the ability to review and approve requests online and the capability to collaborate with other departmental officers irrespective of their physical location, will improve the timeliness and quality response to both internal and external requests, and enhance efficiency and productivity.
The department of Resources is involved in key whole-of-government initiatives to allow more citizen and business transactions with government to be completed online. This will deliver greater transparency by allowing online access to systems and real time updates on the status of requests or applications in progress.
There are a range of IT-related innovations occurring in the minerals and energy area which rely on high broadband IT capability. The first is the HyLogger, which advances the activities of our geological survey by providing high definition imagery and hyperspectral analysis of mining core samples, and allows the information obtained to be made available to prospective exploration entities via the Internet. The National Virtual (Mining) Core Library Project aims to capture detailed mineralogical and visual information from mining drill cores through the HyLogger, and to progressively build a high resolution image of earth materials and properties for the upper few kilometres of the Australian continent to allow for world-class geoscience research.
This project is funded by the Commonwealth’s National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy managed by AuScope and implemented by all states and territories. The HyLogger was delivered to the department in February, with preliminary data collection and processing in progress.
My department is also working to deliver Northern Territory mineral occurrences data through the AuScope Discovery portal. The portal also allows simultaneous viewing and querying of data from multiple sources, not just images. The information is delivered in a standard format which can then be utilised by our clients in their own system for research, modelling and decision-making. The investment attraction opportunity presented by such technology is enormous.
Another specific example is the Biosecurity Surveillance Incident Response and Tracing system; very important for somewhere such as the Territory where we have an enormous pastoral industry and rely heavily on export of live cattle. This is a Commonwealth supported system used locally to aid and record surveillance data.
BioSIRT will be used to keep records of the pest and disease status of properties and includes mapping capabilities to assist staff to develop and conduct surveys. It will be accessible Territory-wide by departmental officials and via the Internet. It is a powerful tool to help in the fight against routine and emergency diseases like citrus canker and foot and mouth disease of cattle. Through improved access to information, it will improve the quality of decisions and reduce the time for real action during an emergency response, thus reducing the impact of any incursion. My department is working nationally to ensure BioSIRT can operate both locally and across jurisdictional borders. This system, and others being developed by the department of Resources, plays a vital role in ensuring my department is able to carry out its functions efficiently across all areas.
Madam Speaker, the choice for Territorians is clear. We can advance Australia by embracing the digital age or we can settle for 20th century technology which will deliver 20th century capacity to deliver health services and pursue business opportunities. I believe Australians deserve better than that. They deserve better than the agglomeration of use-by-date technology; technology even the industry itself has openly criticised. That is surprising because before an election industry does not take sides; they have a bipartisan approach. However, people in the IT industry know the Coalition’s proposal is not for the future of Australia; it is a step backwards. It is back to the future.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Deputy Speaker, I see the Whip over there. I ask, through you, after we get through this statement what happens? Are we adjourning the House? Is that the procedure for this evening, Leader of Government Business?
Mr Burns: Talk to your own Whip.
Mr CONLAN: You do not know, or are you too ashamed to admit it?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex!
Mr CONLAN: I suggest it is probably the latter; you would be ashamed to admit you are going to adjourn the House at 6 pm. Is that what is happening? That is my understanding; at 6 pm on the third day of a two-week sittings, we will adjourn the House because you have nothing else to do …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Relevance. We are talking about …
Mr CONLAN: This is relevant, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is relevant to this parliament. This is relevant to saving money, spending money, and this is a statement ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, there is a point of order before me to which I have not responded. If you have queries …
Mr CONLAN: Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: If you have queries about proceedings in the Chamber I suggest you talk with your Whip. Please address the statement on the National Broadband Network, member for Greatorex.
Mr CONLAN: I have some good stuff on health you might want to hear. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know the answer: yes, we are adjourning the House at 6 pm unless something happens to extend parliament to its usual time. You have already shut down at 9 pm. You do not want to work past 9 pm normally. When I finish and, perhaps, the minister’s reply, we will finish about 6 pm, maybe 6.30 pm. It is disgraceful.
If recycling a speech introduced into this Chamber in June is not bad enough, we now see the parliament of the Northern Territory being hijacked by federal issues to prop up your man in Canberra. Question Time was dominated by it today with your dorothy dixers. We see it again today in a recycled speech. This is a carbon copy of a speech introduced in the June sittings - the broadband network and how wonderful it is going to be. We debated this ad nauseam in the previous sittings. Yet, this government indulges itself shamelessly to bring in the same speech as a way to wedge the CLP - how bad we are, how we should burn in hell because we have no idea on anything, and the world should be thankful for the Australian Labor Party and the members in the Northern Territory. Thank goodness and hallelujah for the Labor Party of the NT because where would we be? The dark clouds did, indeed, disperse on that day in August 2001 when the Labor Party came to power ...
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Ring the bells. Thank you, we have a quorum. Member for Greatorex, you have the call.
Mr CONLAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Today, in Question Time, the government was crowing about the BER and how the CLP and federal Coalition want to put people out of work. How quickly they forget the recession we had to have. How many people were put out of work in the recession we had to have under the Keating government? One million people put out of work. How quickly we forget. We do not want to go over that ground, do we? The speculation is all the CLP and federal Coalition want to do is put people out of work because we do not support the BER, or whatever other make-believe you want to bring into this House.
The amount of make-believe that comes here is staggering. You guys say whatever you want and, for some reason, are allowed to get away with it. You say anything you want. It goes on the Parliamentary Record, you feed it to your whiz kids on the fifth floor, and it makes its way into the newspaper. It is an incredible scenario how things unfold in this Chamber. Here we are on day three of a two week sitting, having done pretty much nothing all week …
Dr Burns: Some of us have.
Mr CONLAN: All we have had to do …
Dr Burns: Some of us have.
Mr CONLAN: You guys have done nothing; you have done absolutely nothing. You have put us through the painful task of listening to your propaganda puff piece rubbish. The minister who introduced this statement is listening to his iPod as we speak. He is not even interested. It is beyond belief what is unfolding in this Chamber and what this parliament has reduced itself to.
I am attempting to defend the integrity of the Northern Territory parliament; all you want to do is diminish that integrity. The minister has diminished it in so many ways, and has an extraordinary capacity to diminish his own ministries. I do not know how many you have had - half a dozen, I believe. You get moved from one to the other; you diminish that and destroy the integrity of the ministry. The Chief Minister is forced to move you on. Collectively, you destroy the integrity of the parliament and continue to do so. You are clearly not interested in work. You are a bunch of loafers, plain and simple.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! We have 10 …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: We have a quorum.
Mr GUNNER: … and it is an offence to …
Mr GILES: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, he is not inside the Chamber.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, he is within the Chamber. It is an offence to call a quorum …
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! It is an offence to call notice to the state of the House when the state of the House is a quorum.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is indeed. You are on a warning, member for Braitling.
Mr GILES: Can I speak to the point of order and ask a question, Madam Deputy Speaker?
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: There are 10 people in the Chamber. Member for Greatorex, you have the call.
Mr CONLAN: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This government has no clear vision of how to govern the Northern Territory; that has been proven time and time again. We see this daily on our streets. Those of us who live in Alice Springs see it constantly and are relentlessly reminded of the lack of vision, resources, commitment and will by this government to inject any of those things into the great city of Alice Springs. We see it in Darwin on a daily basis, and we see it in Katherine and across the Northern Territory. Poor old Tennant Creek is probably worse.
The government has a clear record on its ability to govern. However, when it comes into the parliament it should try to up the ante and pretend - humour us, and the people of the Northern Territory, who are paying $7000 an hour to run this House; it is quite staggering. It could at least pretend to be working hard. General Business Day yesterday only went for two hours. I was five minutes into an important bill, the Health Complaints Commissioner Amendment Bill, which could have been a good debate. I see the government being brought kicking and screaming, brought somewhere to …
Dr Burns: I thought it went for three-and-a-half hours.
Mr CONLAN: You sat on that review for two years. That is what they think about you, minister. They say: ‘When Burns came to the Health ministry he was given the report and he said he would do something about it. He did nothing’. You did nothing. You did nothing as Health minister anyway: however, you did nothing with the report. That is your reputation. That is what they are saying about you …
Dr Burns: That is what you say.
Mr CONLAN: That is what they are saying about you. How do you think I received that information? A report was commissioned in 1998; it took five years. It was completed in 2003 and handed to the minister in April 2004. It is six years old. Nevertheless …
Ms SCRYMGOUR: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Relevance? This is a statement on the NBN, and I ask you to rule on relevance so we can get to the statement.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Arafura. Member for Greatorex, you do seem to have strayed from the subject of National Broadband Network.
Mr CONLAN: I will get to that as I develop my argument. Nevertheless, this is a statement about statements as a whole; how statements are used as a complete time waster in this parliament. This government …
Members interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: You have absolutely nothing else. You bring in half a dozen pages typed up by some whiz-kid on the fifth floor, some you have not even read. You make it up as you go along and read them out to fill in time. You cannot even get to 9 pm with your puff pieces ...
Dr Burns: You said it! Thank you.
Mr CONLAN: What was that?
Dr Burns: Puff pieces. I have been waiting for it.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CONLAN: That is exactly what they are. Let us go back to the original phrase - it is a propaganda political puff piece. You have all these people on the fifth floor doing this; whiz-kids up there pumping out this paraphernalia of propaganda for you and you cannot even get to 9 pm with it. We will finish at 7 pm tonight ...
Dr Burns: You do not like it here anyway.
Mr CONLAN: I pick up on that point. No, I do not like it when this is the situation. Who does? Do you enjoy sitting here enduring this rubbish? I ask any members, as I said before …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex!
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker!
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please pause, member for Arafura. Member for Greatorex, I ask you to direct your comments through the Chair. With new microphones in the Chamber you do not need to have your voice quite so loud. I draw you back to the point about relevance. Thank you, I would appreciate that.
Mr CONLAN: Certainly, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will be getting to the National Broadband Network as I develop my argument in the 20 minutes I am allocated.
Nevertheless, this is a wonderful job and I feel very privileged to do it. I have a great deal of energy and passion for the job. I assure the member for Johnston, and the Chief Minister, I am not going anywhere until I see the back of this Northern Territory government. I will not be going. I will be doing everything I possibly can, even if it is just holding my seat so it is one seat you do not have. I will be doing absolutely everything to ensure we see the back of this inept, bereft, loafing, lazy Northern Territory government which cannot sit 35 days a year. Thirty-five days a year is all we sit, and you cannot fill those days to at least humour the people of the Northern Territory and give the impression you are working. We see it time and time again. Today is an extraordinary example where you have recycled a previous speech on the National Broadband Network introduced into this House in the June sittings.
We have three statements on the Notice Paper: a BER Statement, Broadband, and Growing International Trade, another propaganda political puff piece introduced by the government.
It is disgraceful, and I resent having to spend time away from the real work I could be doing to endure the nonsense government goes on with day after day after day. If all members looked hard and deep into themselves they would feel the same way, except the Chief Minister. I do not know if the Chief Minister will be winning any Father of the Year awards any time soon. He seems to enjoy wasting time …
Ms McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Twenty minutes in and we have had nothing relevant.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, once again, I ask you to come back to the subject at hand, which is the National Broadband Network.
Mr CONLAN: Absolutely, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am getting there.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: We will be putting it to the relevance test.
Mr KNIGHT: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I would like to remind the member for Greatorex we do not involve our families in debates. Commenting on the Chief Minister’s fathering is out of order; we on this side respect that. A gentle reminder, we keep fathering out of it.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Daly. I am not sure if there is a point of order; resume your seat, please. Member for Greatorex, you have the call and if you can come to the point, please.
Mr CONLAN: You can give it out but you cannot take it. Very easy for you to be grubby and sink to the depths - and you will sink to any depths whatsoever to seek the advantage, and you do it time and time again. The Chief Minister did that recently. My point is the Chief Minister does not care about anything else. He is quite happy to endure this vacuum time and time again, day after day, hour after hour, sitting after sitting, for 35 days a year and not get to the real business of governing the Northern Territory. It is quite pathetic.
The broadband network: it is worth pointing out the Coalition has a steady path towards providing broadband and fast Internet services to all Australians with a $2.75bn open access fibre-optic backhaul network which will provide competition for existing services. It is pretty simple, and that is a fact - leveraging private sector investment of $750m; $1bn for wireless network in outer metropolitan areas, and $1bn for regional wireless networks. There is an additional $750m for fixed broadband optimisation over Telstra’s copper network where Australians cannot currently get sufficient broadband speeds.
There will be funding for satellite services to cover the small proportion of Australians who will not be able to access fixed or wireless broadband services, and cancelling the wasteful policy committed by the Labor government regarding the NBN; $43bn - that is 43 000 000 000, a big figure when you write it down - a $43bn program winding up the failures by bringing the private sector back into the frame.
The Coalition’s plan is to provide 97% of coverage to Australian homes; a simple and visionary plan. As I said in my speech in the June sittings, the future is not hardwired; the future is wireless and mobile phone technology. That is where it will be in five years time. People will not be plugging things into the back of computers. They will be doing all their work on iPhones, or equivalent, in the future. It is pretty simple.
We do not need another propaganda ministerial puff piece, the second one in as many sittings. It is a waste of time - a waste of parliament’s and every member’s time. Every member could be doing other things. I suggested to the member for Arnhem how nice it is through the Arnhem region at this time of year, and how she could be there talking to constituents, solving concerns, addressing issues rather than enduring this constant time-wasting, self-aggrandising back-slapping which is the hallmark of the Australian Labor Party, and the Australian Labor Party of the Northern Territory.
It is quite pathetic; I resent it. I like this job; I want that on the record because I can see it could be peddled, twisted and spun …
Mr Tollner: Bungles will be into it!
Mr CONLAN: Yes, he is rubbing his hands together: ‘Conlan does not like the job; Conlan has had it; Conlan is worn out’. Rubbish! Conlan has plenty of energy and passion. I have just started in politics and, with luck, have a long time to go. I am not going anywhere until I see this incompetent, lazy, bereft, moribund government …
Ms Scrymgour interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: It is good. I wrote down several adjectives, member for Arafura. We can use them collectively and individually - all adjectives apply. It is coming up to 6.05 pm. It is amazing; I guess you are tired and want to finish now. It is getting late, is it not? I am sure you would all rather be somewhere else ...
Ms McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Relevance to the statement!
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, you have gone way off the subject of the National Broadband Network. Could you come back to the subject at hand, please? You are really testing the case of relevance.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Deputy Speaker, I have 30 seconds left and that will do. I hate to see the government being worked too hard. I know they really want to go home ...
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Ms Scrymgour: Your bitterness is starting to really chew you up!
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please pause. A quorum has been called. Ring the bells.
Mr CONLAN: Not at all. I feel for you people because it is getting late; you want to have dinner and go home - I will finish. Lucky you – you can go to your homes tonight. Madam Deputy Speaker, this is another propaganda puff piece; a waste of time …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please resume your seat, your time has expired. We have a quorum.
Ms McCARTHY (Arnhem): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the minister’s statement on the National Broadband Network ...
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Arnhem has the call.
Ms McCARTHY: Madam Deputy Speaker ...
Mr Conlan: Goodnight everyone.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex!
Mr Conlan: I want to say good night; see you Tuesday.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order!
Ms McCARTHY: Madam Deputy Speaker, it is very clear …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! The member for Greatorex showed great disrespect for the Chair when not showing obeisance on his way out. I draw your attention to that. I am not asking you to take any action; however, it goes in complete concert with their behaviour over the last three days.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for the point of order, Leader of Government Business. It is noted, and we will be keeping an eye on the member for Greatorex.
Dr BURNS: There is a relevant standing order.
Ms Scrymgour: Standing Order 46.
Dr BURNS: Anyway, I digress.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Indeed, thank you, Leader of Government Business.
Ms McCARTHY: Madam Deputy Speaker, the Labor government is very serious about its commitment to deliver high-quality accessible and affordable broadband to Australians across the country, from city dwellers to regional, rural, and remote residents.
As we have seen by the behaviour in the House this afternoon and on previous days, the opposition has no regard or respect for the people of the Northern Territory in this House, a House where we represent our constituents. We must put on the record, in this important time for all Australians who are about to vote, they have a real opportunity to choose which party is working for them. Clearly, the opposition does not want to have a bar of that; it does not wish to put on the record how farcical the policies of the Coalition are.
This House of law governs the people of the Northern Territory. We discuss, debate and highlight the differences between the many policies, not only across the Northern Territory, across Australia. If the opposition feels it is a farce and it can be disrespectful to this House, and the debates and statements being made, they ought to be ashamed.
The Labor government in the Northern Territory, and the Gillard government, recognise the importance to our economic development of ensuring Australia prospers now and into the future. Fast, reliable broadband is essential for education, medicine and health, sole business, local government and engagement with the rest of the world. As minister for Regional and Indigenous Development and Local Government, I begin by saying what federal Labor’s National Broadband Network will mean for our 20 growth towns in the Northern Territory.
We are at the beginning of major reform across the Northern Territory. It is pivotal we work with a federal government which is aware of these reforms. Our vision for Territory growth towns includes them having all the services and opportunities of comparable towns in rural Australia. We are taking on the challenge of years of neglect and building strong, prosperous growth towns for the benefit of every resident of our regions across the Northern Territory. It is about building local economies, creating training opportunities and real jobs for people by working with the land councils, the business community and local people. Fast, reliable and affordable broadband is a key to this success ensuring effective communications for business, schools, shires, health clinics and families. High-quality, accessible and affordable broadband will increase the IT capabilities and connectivity of shires across the regions.
As the Minister for Information, Communications and Technology Policy told this House, the National Broadband Network is about universal access and connection. It will open up a whole new world, economically, socially and environmentally. This is particularly so for Territorians living in our growth towns. Currently, broadband can be accessed in all but four of our 20 growth towns. Business, health workers, shires and families have access to broadband in Maningrida, Wadeye, Borroloola, Gunbalanya, Ngukurr, Numbulwar, Gapuwiyak, Yuendumu, Yirrkala, Lajamanu, Kalkarindji, Ramingining, Hermannsburg, Papunya, Elliott and Ali Curung.
Under the National Broadband Network, broadband will be delivered in the other four remaining growth towns of Angurugu, Milingimbi, Nguiu and Galiwinku by new generation satellite services. For the 16 growth towns already with access to broadband, the National Broadband Network will deliver significantly increased data speeds; a minimum of 12 megabits per second – a considerable increase. The current maximum data access speed available in these 16 growth towns is 256 kilobits per second.
The Territory government will work in partnership with a re-elected federal Labor government to maximise these data speeds. The National Broadband Network will directly support up to 25 000 local jobs every year, on average, over the eight year life of the project. Yet, Tony Abbott and the Liberals will cancel federal Labor’s existing arrangements and commitment to a national broadband network. Worse, under Tony Abbott and the Liberals alternative broadband scheme, our growth towns will be no better off than they are now.
There are three main reasons why our growth towns would be no better off under Tony Abbott and the Liberals: first, the Liberals broadband scheme would only provide up to $6.3bn in total over seven years in grant and investment funding. This dollar figure would not be sufficient to match federal Labor’s national broadband plan for the bush. For our growth towns this means there is no guarantee broadband will be delivered to Angurugu, Milingimbi, Nguiu and Galiwinku. For our 16 growth towns where broadband is already being delivered, data speeds will remain at current levels. These towns would be no better off under Tony Abbott and the Liberals. Business, schools, shires, health clinics and families in these 16 growth towns would not be able to access the increased data speeds which would be made possible by federal Labor’s National Broadband Network. In contrast, federal Labor will invest $43bn in the National Broadband Network increasing broadband speeds and ensuring full coverage to our 20 growth towns.
The second reason our growth towns will be no better off under Tony Abbott and the Liberals is the Liberal scheme for delivering broadband in the bush relies on subsidising private sector investment. The Liberal proposal is nothing new. We already subsidise private sector telecommunication investment in the bush. We have a proven track record. For example, the partnership between the Northern Territory government, Australian government, Telstra, Rio Tinto and the land councils made it possible to extend broadband services from Darwin across Arnhem Land to Nhulunbuy.
In my travels on the Central Arnhem Highway and the goat track, in my beautiful electorate of Arnhem up to Ramingining, you can see where those cables have been laid. The incredible amount of work done over many weeks through the terrain to lay that network was quite extraordinary. It was also innovative, creative and it gives people in the bush and in Arnhem Land choice, and connects them to the rest of the world in a way we have never seen before.
I have seen the important benefits of the broadband partnership and what it has brought to my electorate of Arnhem. I do not have to be there today to know what it means to my constituents. I also know my role as the member for Arnhem is to be in this House of law and express why these initiatives are imperative to improving the lives of my constituents and access to communication for my constituents.
At Garrthalala in your electorate, Madam Deputy Speaker, I witnessed firsthand students using their green laptops to access the Internet, tapping into a whole new world of education and training potential. The Liberals scheme for delivering broadband in the bush by subsidising private sector investment is the system we already have. We are already doing it! We have the proven track record and experience to continue with this work.
The final reason our growth towns would be no better off under the Liberal broadband scheme is broadband would be no more affordable than it is now. Tony Abbott and the Liberals have no plan to separate telecommunication competition. As chief executives of Optus, Primus, Macquarie Telecom, Internode and Transact indicated earlier this year, the National Broadband Network addresses the reality that right now Telstra holds an industry monopoly. The Liberals have no plan to change this situation. Under Tony Abbott and the Liberals, private sector telecommunication providers will only be able to deliver broadband services in competition with Telstra if they negotiate to use Telstra’s cables or construct their own telecommunications infrastructure.
As John Lindsay of Internet provider, Internode, said in April this year:
- Simply cancelling the NBN without any indication of a policy for upgrading Australia’s telecommunications infrastructure is a clear indication that Tony Abbott plans to allow Telstra to re-monopolise the fixed-line access network.
In contrast, under federal Labor the National Broadband Network company, NBN Co and Telstra have reached a heads of agreement to redress this problem. The National Broadband Network will relieve Telstra of driving the universal service obligation set up under the Howard government so Telstra can be free to pursue shareholder value; free of the mess the Liberals left it in. This means the National Broadband Network will open the way for other private telecommunications providers to deliver broadband services, driving prices down and making fast, reliable Internet more affordable. Federal Labor plans to create a new entity called USO Co to ensure the needs of regional Australians, such as the Northern Territory, continue to be served. This will take over the universal service obligations from 1 July 2012.
I will say it again: if a Liberal government is elected on 21 August our growth towns will be no better off. Territorians in our growth towns deserve better than this.
As the Minister for Information, Communications and Technology Policy informed this House, a National Broadband Network will deliver optical fibre to the homes and businesses of Territorians in Darwin, Palmerston, Katherine, Nhulunbuy, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs. The fibre optics which already span these areas does not yet reach our homes and businesses. A National Broadband Network would extend existing fibre-optic cables to homes and businesses. It would stop bottlenecks when large numbers of people are using broadband Internet. The result will be faster, more reliable Internet for Territorians living and working in these areas and, for the benefit of the member for Fong Lim, there are many people in the growth towns, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, who would like to know they can access this new world of technology.
The National Broadband Network will increase data speeds to 100 MB per second; 100 times faster than those currently used. Faster Internet is important for families, for education, for medicine, health and small business. IT communication, especially for health workers in our regions, means they will be able to use the consultancy for medicinal needs. Places such as Sunrise Health Service in the Katherine region are able to link up through e-Health and other IT technology. These things can be advanced, and would benefit from the National Broadband Network. We know the health of Indigenous people has to be improved, and we need smarter ways of doing it. Accessing information from doctors, from specialists - for close to six months of the year towns are isolated and we need other ways to access information.
Federal Labor’s National Broadband Network is a national building plan which will connect our Territory growth towns and, indeed, all Australians with next generation technologies.
In 2008, during the second reading speech of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network) Bill in the Senate Liberal Senator, Simon Birmingham, said:
- I and all members of the Coalition recognise the fundamental importance of broadband and effective delivery of broadband to Australians across the diversity of our country, in metropolitan and country areas. We recognise its importance to our economic development, and to ensuring that Australia prospers now and into the future. We know that broadband and effective communications policies will play a very important role in Australia’s future and in ensuring that we enjoy the same time of economic growth and economic benefits that Australia has enjoyed so much over the last decade.
That was in 2008, yet Tony Abbott and the Liberals say they will scrap federal Labor’s plan of a National Broadband Network if elected on 21 August. Tony Abbott and the Liberals would substitute this plan with a $6.3bn scheme which would leave all Territorians, particularly, those living in our 20 growth towns, no better off.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we will work with the re-elected Gillard Labor government to deliver better quality, more accessible and more affordable broadband to Territorians to ensure our economic development and prosperity into the future. The National Broadband Network is not a white elephant, as Tony Abbott would have Territorians believe; it is a nation building plan everyone receives.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, once again my contribution will be a Gillard/Abbott-free speech because I am not an expert on broadband. I was looking up the web page on the Internet - yes, I know how to work the Internet – and people were putting comments about various politicians’ viewpoints. Malcolm Turnbull commented on Labor’s contribution to broadband, and at the bottom was a series of comments. I would say 50% of those comments were for and 50% were against who had the best policy. Some people, perhaps my age, said: ‘What are you all talking about?’
I enjoy the technology I need; I do not like being told I need new technology. I recently attended an Optus function at SKYCITY. I was with people from Optus who were telling everyone the marvellous things they are bringing in - new computers we will one day have implanted in our ear and be able to do everything by moving our mouth. I want to choose if I want to be driven or controlled by technology. I will take the technology I need; not technology where I am pushed down a commercial path.
I am interested in what is happening to the Internet, and I understand the importance of broadband throughout the Northern Territory. I am not going to argue which party has the best policy; I am not equipped for that. Ask me about chooks, about growing watermelons; do not ask me whether Labor policy on broadband is better than the Coalition policy.
In relation to broadband and what we have heard from the federal government, the issue concerning me is we are getting a system feeding into the main centres of the Northern Territory; straight down the track and out to Kununurra - that is it.
The member for Arnhem said there is already broadband in quite a few growth towns. I am unsure if she means landline or satellite. My understanding, from reading the report, is the broadband the growth towns will receive is a maximum of 12 MB per second, whereas the landline system in Darwin, Katherine, Elliott, Ti Tree, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs will be around 100 MB per second.
I understand it is a very expensive program, and both the federal and Territory government have said the growth towns are about closing the gap; about increasing opportunities for Aboriginal people to create businesses and develop and normalise the town. That is the common phrase being used. However, we do not give them the opportunity to be equal to the rest of the Northern Territory. We give them 12 MB instead of 100 MB. The government is saying it supports growth towns, supports closing the gap; however, will give about 15% of what other people are getting throughout the Northern Territory and main parts of Australia.
The government said communities which are not receiving land-based broadband will get satellite. I took information off the NBN Co Limited website, the company which will deliver this service, on what is satellite broadband. It discusses technical constraints of satellite broadband and latency - the time taken for the signal to go to the satellite and return – which can be fairly important. I have been told by an expert if latency is too great you lose your connection; if it is too long you can lose your connection, which can be frustrating for people dialling up. One of the problems is as satellites use very high frequency for transmission they are susceptible to interference, or blocking, by atmospheric conditions, including heavy rain or line of sight obstructions such as trees. Many of our growth towns in the tropics receive heavy rain. When I had an Optus connection for the Internet in my office, every time it rained I had no Internet.
It is fine to say Aboriginal people will be getting broadband; the advantages are there, we know that. However, the government is giving growth towns 10% not 100%, which is a shame. The Northern Territory government should be saying to the federal government: you believe in closing the gap, in giving people equal opportunity in the growth towns so, from an IT point of view, let us give them that opportunity. Give them the same opportunity as other people in the Northern Territory. That needs looking at. If you are going to spend billions of dollars why not do it properly? It concerns me, and I have not been told anything different.
I was at Laynhapuy Homelands and visited Garrthalala; they are hoping to build a secondary school there. There is an optical fibre network going right past the door, more or less, from Katherine to Nhulunbuy; however, they are not connected. The question I ask the minister is: ‘Are people who are within a reasonable distance of existing high-speed Internet systems going to be connected to it?’
Recruiting teachers will always be a difficulty in those areas, especially when developing a secondary school. High-speed broadband has the advantage of having a teacher in Katherine, Nhulunbuy or Charles Darwin University to teach students. That area has not been discussed.
I have received a briefing from Power and Water Indigenous Essential Services. They want to reduce the number of generators in communities by putting a bigger power station in perhaps Arnhem Land, and transmitting to communities such as Maningrida and Ramingining. Less power will then need to be generated from powerhouses. Why are we not looking at setting up an electricity grid from Channel Island and connecting up to all those communities using the electricity lines as part of a broadband connection - broadband over power lines? I have taken this from a website called Howstuffworks ‘Computer’, which says:
- How Broadband Over Powerlines Works
An emerging technology may be the newest heavy hitter in the competitive world of broadband Internet service. It offers high-speed access to your home through the most unlikely path; the common electrical outlet.
With Broadband over Power Lines (BPL), you can plug your computer into any electrical outlet in your home and instantly have access to high-speed Internet. By combining the technological principles of radio, wireless networking and modems, developers have created a way to send data over power lines and into homes at speeds between 500 kilobits and 3 megabits per second.
I realise that is lower than what currently exists; however, this technology is being used in cities in the United States, the United Kingdom, and many European countries. Therefore, are we thinking enough about the multiple uses of existing facilities or, if we were to run broadband to the growth towns, could we put a gas line in the same trench and share the cost of construction? Could we use power lines to hook the growth towns into the main powerhouse and also for broadband? Someone else will have to argue whether that will work.
However, let us not have a process where one government will put broadband into the Northern Territory. Perhaps we can share the cost. Perhaps we can reduce costs by sharing the opportunity to take gas to powerhouses in remote areas and take broadband with it. Could we take power lines to those areas and use them for transmission of broadband? I am happy for more technical people to tell me that it is not possible. With such a big program - in Australia we sometimes do things in isolation - there is room for some thinking outside the square, especially in relation to getting broadband out into the growth towns.
Material I have read suggests high-speed broadband is more expensive than existing broadband; probably because you have to recover much of the cost. How does that work in a street where you can receive high-speed broadband but simply do not want it or you do not need it? High-speed broadband is for people who want to download heaps of data, or upload data. It might be good for video and television - it gives good quality and could be used in schools for teaching. However, can an average person who wants to get on the Internet occasionally, send a few say: ‘No, I will have the 12 megabits and pay less. Why do I need 100?’ It is similar to having a V8 turbo. I only want to go to the shop - can I have the 4-cylinder version, which could be cheaper? Do people have an option of not paying for the deluxe model of broadband? Good for some people - good for isolated communities who might want to talk to a doctor; police might want to download data immediately. Those things have great benefit for certain groups of people; however, many people only want to send an e-mail or log onto the Internet for information. Others may want the luxurious version. If they want to pay for it that is fine; however, the average person should not have to pay for the luxurious model.
I belong to a fairly large group of people who, maybe because of my age, or perhaps I do not really care - not because I am not interested, I let other people ...
Ms Purick: Not relevant.
Mr WOOD: That is right. I let other people tell me the technical issues; I look at the social issues. I ask how we can deliver this in a more appropriate way and share costs with other instrumentalities. That is the area I would like to debate. I will not debate whether the Coalition policy is better than Labor; I do not know and have not had time to talk to technical people who can tell me. Technical people on both sides are saying one is better than the other. I am unsure how you take the politics out of technology. It is like saying this plane is better because the Labor Party like it, it is more comfortable. The other side says the plane is no good; this wing span is better. It gets into a political fight, which confuses me.
I would like to survey of the Assembly: Let us have a quiz night about broadband. What is 100 MB? Hands up those who know what a megabyte is?
A member: Very small.
Mr WOOD: I would say it is a small bite from a little dog.
I might ask: what does DSL stand for? What does ASL stand for? What does ASL+2 stand for? What is fibre? What is wireless? I have introduced a new one - broadband over power lines. Who in this House is an expert? Who knows about PDSL – power line digital subscriber line? I can sound terrific - ask me what it is about ...
Ms Purick: No idea.
Mr WOOD: I have some idea; I am not totally dumb. However, if everyone was here I would say: ‘Excuse me, does anyone know what PLT is?’ It is power line Telecom.
I do not believe I am the only person who does not understand. I am not the smartest person when it comes to IT; however, that does not mean I cannot participate in the debate. If this technology is good for Australia we should debate it and not let politics get in the way of science or costs. I am somewhat bewildered by the cost. Sometimes we talk about billions as if it is dollars and cents. $43bn is many houses for Aboriginal people. If we are spending $43bn I want to ensure it is going to do what is intended. If it does what it says and helps the country, you have my support. Let us ensure it is not spent like the pink batts and SIHIP; it is done carefully and wisely and we keep a tab on where it is being spent.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will leave it there. Growth towns should receive the same deal as the main towns in the Northern Territory. Give them the IT equipment and look at possible sharing of infrastructure. Power and gas could be taken across the Territory in the same lines as broadband. That is an option we should think about.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Deputy Speaker, I listened intently to the member for Nelson and I am going to throw away my preparation and take the politics out of this.
The member for Nelson is absolutely right when it comes to some of the recent debates in this House. We are using this option to fight the federal election. I have to be honest, my preparation is all about doing that and I am not going to use it. I have a few notes and I have searched the Internet and found a blog by an expert which removes the politics.
The $43bn scares the hell out of me. I know the trouble a family can go through when they get themselves into debt. We are going to the federal level and talking $43bn, and if that money is wasted and has to be paid back - if it does not do what is expected - as the member for Nelson said, we are in much pain to pay that back. Think of the Indigenous houses that will not be constructed because we are attempting to meet the debt created by a $43bn loan.
Governments, even our own Treasurer, suggest Australia is in a far better position than many countries around the world. However, it is used as an excuse to go further into debt; we are nowhere near as bad as some other countries. If not for the previous government, perhaps we would not have come off the same field some countries have. The previous government left this country in surplus; it was handed over in good condition.
I worry when we talk about these numbers and do not bring them down to what the average person can think about - someone who earns $500 a week, $300 a week, even $700 or $800 a week. What $43bn means is not comprehended; does not add up in type of home life.
In relation to politics, one side has promised this big $43bn program with no real knowledge of how it is going to work. The blog I will read from shortly goes into detail and explains it quite well. The conservative side of politics wants to expand our Internet services and improve things in a more managed way and provide a backbone for business and technology to grow without interfering too much. I worry that the current conservative side of politics is criticised for not coming out with big issues and spending more money. I would hate to promise something when I do not know how much I have in the bank.
I was speaking to a gentleman recently who works for a telco. He told me optical fibre runs across this country and there is no need to re-run it in many places; it is a waste of money. The technology at the start of the fibre, and on the way down to wherever you are going, is the important part. It is the software, the computer capacity, of what is at each end. The fibre has not changed much in the last decade; it is the same optical fibre. However, the computing capacity at each end is what needs to be upgraded. Why do we need more optical fibre, particularly in areas where the fibre already exists? This was his argument. Yes, we need to upgrade the systems at each end for what is going down the optical fibre but the fibre itself does not need to change. It is the same fibre as a decade ago when optical fibre was being rolled out. The computers have changed, the capacity has changed, but not the conduit running from Adelaide to Darwin, or wherever to wherever.
The government provides hollow promises. The member for Casuarina used an anecdote where he was promising pastoralists and others could use this technology and be in their house and have water turning on and off in the middle of their property, perhaps also opening and closing different shutters. That technology is available today. He gives the impression this optical fibre is going to run to every pastoralist in the Northern Territory. That is not going to happen. You know it is not going to happen, and to say it will is misleading.
I found on the Internet a blog by Sean Kay. He is a senior Australian IT executive. This is his opinion; it takes the politics out:
- As someone who is very ‘pro’ technology and likes to be on the cutting edge, I find myself staring at many of my colleagues and acquaintances in the industry with disbelief when the topic of the National Broadband Network comes up. People I know (and some just e-mail or tweet me) ask if I’ve bumped my head and forgotten what I do for a living. It even has had me re-thinking my views, but ultimately I keep coming back to the same place.
This is what he thinks.
- First of all, $43bn is a ridiculous sum of money to spend on anything. It is even crazier when the country finds itself coming off a $22bn surplus and staring down the barrel of $100bn debt. I don’t think this is at all right now about need, but is entirely about our ability to cover the cost of such a thing. Our federal government, no matter who wins, is going to be spending about $5bn-$6bn per year just servicing that $100bn debt - on the $30bn of debt on the NBN, you’d be looking at close to $2bn of servicing costs per year alone! Why not get back into surplus in 2012 and revisit this whole situation then? If the US economy fully recovers, Europe looks stable and forecasts for the Australian economy look good and project us paying off that massive debt, then awesome, let’s come up with a plan and build a world-class network.
The next problem I have is around the actual execution. Does anyone think that having this big capital works program run by a guy with a hardware vendor background and some consultants is a good idea? Not only that, it seems like they are doing it on the fly. If we’re going to spend all this money, couldn’t we at least see a coherent plan of what’s going to be built BEFORE they start awarding contracts. This is the exact same mess Labor created with the insulation program and the Building the Education Revolution - lots of spend, very poor controls, not enough safeguards and very poor oversight.
Further on:
When I hear about the NBN Co talking about satellites and all kinds of other unplanned crazy, this thing starts smelling like many IT projects, $42bn will quickly become $50bn and so on.
I have an issue with the necessity as well. Many of my colleagues and friends in IT are running around crazily screaming that 100Mbps isn’t enough for people - we need 10Gbps. Huh? That’s just stupid. Right now, most people are operating on their home Internet connection at under 2Mbps and some have gone up to 8Mbps with ADSL2. Take up on ADSL2 hasn’t been 100% - many people have chosen to remain happily on lower speeds.
That is also a worry. What if it is not taken up?
I’ve had Telstra Cable and used to routinely get 15Mbps or more and I’m about as much of a power user as you’re going to find and that was good enough for me. Right now and I’d venture a guess and say for the next 10 years, 100Mbps is going to be more than enough to meet the needs of the average person.
- Capacity is my other issue. I don’t have figures to back me up, so I’m openly winging this bit – let’s call it an educated guess. My understanding is that a significant majority of traffic consumed by Australians comes from overseas and, presumably, like most other countries, the US would be a big part of that. The NBN plan does nothing to increase the capacity between the US and Australia – so aren’t you just building a giant fat pipe to try and suck a pea through a straw? As I’ve said on Twitter, if the NBN included a fibre run to Guam/Hawaii and onto the US, then I’d be more excited. This would go a long way towards getting rid of ‘usage’ based rates for Internet connectivity in the US and provide a more ‘all you can eat’ style.
If we have this fabulous network in Australia, the moment we surf the Internet and go overseas we are reduced to that cable capacity. The Internet is all about the world wide web – www - world wide web. How can this be so fabulous for Australia if, as soon as we go onto the Internet to download something, perhaps education or medical - something from the United States or England - we are no better off because we do not have optical fibre running out of Australia.
Back to the blog:
- I also don’t fully understand the use cases for all this bandwidth. One of the first things you hear talked about is remote communities getting better medical care. Ok, maybe we’ll be able to move high-res X-rays and MRI results around, but I think you’d have a better chance of finding a unicorn than finding a doctor willing to remotely diagnose a patient over a high speed Internet connection. Insurance companies will step in and crack down - I mean we struggle to keep obstetricians from leaving the industry because of malpractice, imagine what this would create?!?
The other big use case is improved education. Again, I don’t understand this. The technology exists today to record lectures, stream them live or have them up for download and with the use of stuff like Skype, people can participate remotely. What are we talking about here, better resolution? Come on!
- The final use case myth is around the magical undiscovered future technology that is going to require bigger bandwidth or we’ll all move back into the caves and be forced to live like Bear Grylls. That is Future FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) - nothing more, nothing less. People who want this to go through use the fear of ‘falling behind’ as a passive aggressive sales technique. The FUD runs so deep that you can’t say things like, ‘I can’t think of anything that could cause that disruption’ because the FUDsters jump in and say, ‘of course not, it hasn’t been invented yet, that’s why you should plan for it’. Sorry, I don’t go for that kind of thing. When we get to that minority report style 3D holographic future, then we’ll surely have seen it coming via a small series of increasing evolutions and we should then react accordingly, but technology normally doesn’t have such abnormal disruptiveness -technology is an ecosystem of continual progress standing on the shoulders of giants.
My last issue is with the evolution of technology. Right now the Net Neutrality debate is raging in the US. One ugly aspect of where the discussion is headed is wireless falling outside the scope of Net Neutrality agreements. This is simply because the carriers know that the best way to solve the last mile issue is with better wireless technology and that’s where the R&D is going. Digging up trenches and running fibre across telephone poles is 20th century methods of solving a 21st century issue. Then you have the same ‘technologists’ who say we need all this fibre to protect from ‘future unknown technology’ while also saying that wireless and copper technology won’t evolve - you can’t have it both ways, you can’t KNOW what the limits of copper or wireless are while saying some undiscovered tech will come along and obliterate out bandwidth.
Overall, the best part about my position is, if I’m wrong, the country just needs to get on with building it. However, if Labor are wrong and spend $42bn on this network and it is under used and becomes a great big white elephant for the next 15 years, then what? You can’t get that money back again.
Mr McCARTHY (Lands and Planning): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the minister’s statement on the roll-out of the National Broadband Network. I would like to comment on the member for Nelson’s participation in the debate. Once again, good pragmatic commonsense initiatives, which are one end of the project - the vision, the ambition and the courage in nation building down to the fine end, to the micromanaging of how the project is delivered.
Looking at cable television in the urban areas, it was quite logical to use exiting infrastructure. Cable television throughout the city of Sydney utilised existing aerials supporting the delivery of electricity. It was common sense; it worked. No one was marching into a $1m home with a jackhammer, a bobcat and a ditch-witch, as the member for Fong Lim suggested today; heavy machines barging into people’s front gardens busily tunnelling to put in fibre optic or cable technology.
A long time ago telephone lines used existing technology, and the member for Nelson has a very good point; it comes down to the delivery end. When we mention co-existing technologies, I will share a brief story about the completion of the gas pipeline coming from the main north-south line to the McArthur River Mine.
I stumbled into a Christmas party/celebration party on the completion of the gas line at Daly Waters. However, there was a sombre mood and I could not quite work out the problem; you had the Christmas party and the celebration of a major construction project to complete a gas pipeline. They had lost the pig. I said not to worry, we will find a new pig; there were plenty of pigs at Robinson, Calvert and Woollogorang. However, the pig was a device which went into the gas pipeline. They shoot it, at high speed, through the pipeline to check it has been constructed properly and the pipe was clear. The pig was missing somewhere between the Highway Inn and McArthur River Mine. I suddenly started to understand the sombre nature of these high-tech construction workers who had lost their pig.
I took a great interest in gas pipelines, and from my humble knowledge of gas pipeline technology and broadband technology, I can see some services do not co-exist. I recently travelled across the top road to Maningrida, Ramingining into Nhulunbuy following the new fibre-optic line. Having researched how that is laid - the technology is very sophisticated; they move in fast, there is minimal environmental impact, and a great result. However, Tennant Creek to Ali Curung has a power line. The member for Nelson’s ideas are brilliant.
That links to the tragedies which occurred with pink batts - vision, courage, a government determined to deliver good green initiatives. However, unscrupulous operators, people trying to take advantage of the system led to consequences which proved fatal for a number of young Australians.
Governments cannot do it all. Governments can set the benchmark and provide resources and vision. However, there is a very high level of trust needed, which pinpoints good management. Australian governments have learned some very valuable lessons in relation to a stimulus fiscal policy.
The Gillard Labor government’s commitment for a National Broadband Network is a vision for the future of Australia, for what we can achieve. It is truly a nation building project. The Gillard government knows a National Broadband Network is needed if Australia is to successfully take its place among world economic, social and environmental leaders.
I have great memories of a 1968 HK Holden panel van. What a mighty auto that was! It served me well in the Northern Territory. However, it would not be so good these days. We needed to move to better technology. When you had dad in the back yard helping you with the distributor and the points, you had no fear about messing with technology. Now you need to be very careful messing with the computer operations in a modern motor vehicle - and so we should. Industries are created around doing that. That is part of life moving forward - technology.
The Internet has revolutionised the way Australians communicate, conduct business and socialise. More than 25 000 businesses received orders over the Internet during 2008-09. Many in this House would, or have family members who, shop online from retail chains and sites such as eBay or Grays Auctions. How many of us turn to the Internet rather than the hard copy White Pages when looking for a local business? Google, Facebook, and YouTube are almost daily habits.
The National Broadband Network will take the Internet to the next level for the benefit of all Australians. The member for Brennan questioned whether Australia needs it, and is it connected to the outside world? The starting point for me, having lived in regional and remote areas for more than half my life, is Australia is a massive country. The challenge for an efficiency-driven Australia is to connect ourselves. The National Broadband Network in the Territory will deliver into homes in Darwin, Palmerston, Nhulunbuy, Katherine, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs, right across the Territory, let alone the country, enabling us to access Internet at 100 times faster than most can now. Impressively, the NBN will also deliver next generation wireless and satellite services to the Northern Territory at rates about 20 times higher than currently experienced using those technologies today. More than 25 000 jobs will be created with the construction of the NBN.
In the Northern Territory, the roll-out of the NBN will inject $1bn into the economy over eight years and create untold opportunities. These opportunities are the most exciting because the potential in business, health, education, culture, engagement, is almost limitless - the way of the future.
We know Territorians want access to high-speed broadband - look at Territory 2030. As members know, the Territory 2030 strategic plan was developed in consultation with Territorians and sets out a road map for the Territory’s future. Throughout the plan, again and again, Territorians have told us they want access to broadband in our cities, towns, communities, libraries, schools, and businesses. A quote from page 66 of the plan puts the case plainly:
- We must not waiver in our efforts to connect every Territorian to a high-speed broadband network.
Loud and clear; Territorians want a high-speed broadband network because it delivers efficiency. Yet, the Country Liberals and a Tony Abbott Liberal government think they know better. They would pull the plug on the National Broadband Network. They are telling us we are wrong, we do not need access to technology which would take us into the future. The Liberals are telling Territorians we should be happy with what we have. We should be happy with a grab bag of outdated, slower technology which will not come near our needs. The Liberal plan would deny Territorians access to computer technology they rightly deserve. That is not good enough.
I have lived in some pretty remote places where contact with the outside world was possible only through HF radio and, then, radio telephones. I value the Internet connecting Territorians with each other, with Australia, and the outside world. I do not want to see the Territory lag behind in access to technology and services because the Liberal Party has pulled the plug.
This government is delivering now and investing in the future of the Territory with a $1.8bn infrastructure budget for 2010-11. We are connecting the Territory by investing more than $330m in our roads. We are investing in education, with $886m for school infrastructure and more teachers. We are investing in health, with a record $1.16bn in hospital and clinic infrastructure, health services and more nurses. Also in community safety, including $310m for police and emergency services. These investments are across the Territory in our cities, regional centres and growth towns. This is real vision; this is delivering.
As Territorians, we know the challenges posed in delivering projects and services as a result of our vast geographic distances. In the Barkly electorate I have firsthand regular experience travelling across vast distances to meet and do business with constituents. There are additional challenges in delivering services to close the gap on Indigenous disadvantage in health, education, housing, and community safety, particularly in the bush. With vast distances between communities, high-speed broadband will help Territorians have access to better, faster, more efficient services.
Take healthcare: we are delivering extra nurses, mobile services like dental and renal care, and hospital and clinic infrastructure. Improvements in e Health through the NBN will support health workers through improved access to medical support and information to assist with diagnosis, treatment, and patient management. It will also reduce the number of patients who have to leave their family and community for medical assessments. This story is told to me by nurses in remote areas, by health professionals and doctors; it is simple efficiency which can be delivered by high technology. That is what this plan is about. However, the Country Liberals and Tony Abbott want to pull the plug on the potential this project delivers.
Distance will no longer be a barrier to doing business across our vast geography. With improved opportunities to grow Territory enterprises through e-business, the face of small business will change and grow with more home-based businesses able to access Internet services at speeds normally only found in Australia’s largest cities. People living in remote and regional centres will have access to the technology to enable them to carry out business online without travelling for hours, and also reduce our carbon footprint.
One of the major changes in teaching was the introduction of smart board technology. SMART boards benefit students and teachers but we can do better. The NBN will mean access to the Internet as a resource tool at speeds of up to 100 times faster. For bush kids, the NBN will bring them closer to their counterparts in town. It will make the use of the Internet and its world of information an everyday part of the learning process, broadening horizons and opening opportunities. I am proud to be from a generation of teachers who carried a piece of chalk; however, things have moved on. It has become better and we must go with technology; it is the way of the future, the way of our planet, and the way to deliver efficiencies.
I hear the Country Liberals will not support this project, and Tony Abbott has clearly outlined to the Australian public if elected on 21 August he would not support it either.
With a national broadband network police officers, particularly in our remote communities, will connect with the main system in a timely fashion, rather than waiting for their computer to connect to the network. What a difference it will make to all Australians.
This government is growing the Territory by turning off land five times faster than before. The new suburbs of Bellamack, Zuccoli, Mitchell and Johnston are future homes for Territorians. These new suburbs will have fibre-to-home technology. With NBN, they will be downloading at rates of 1 GB per second. Tony Abbott’s cheap and nasty plan would keep Internet access at these future homes stuck in technology of the past. As the Territory 2030 strategic plan notes, the development of a tropical, sustainable and liveable city of Weddell presents a great opportunity for the Territory; an opportunity to design a city which would be a model for cities and towns of the future, with sustainable homes, and the integration of broadband and communications infrastructure. It is an opportunity which would not be fully realised without the National Broadband Network.
In relation to an example of operational capacity within the Department of Construction and Infrastructure, the National Broadband Network will assist this department, and government, increase productivity and reduce response times. A new asset management system is currently being developed to maximise the potential of new information and communications technology. Officers from the Department of Construction and Infrastructure will be able to log onto the system remotely to access and provide status reports, arrange works, and track the status of projects within a geographical location.
The benefits of being able to access information about works under way within a particular area will bring about increased efficiencies. This new system will facilitate closer relationships with clients to develop a variety of program scenarios, better planned projects, and take advantage of opportunities to combine major projects to achieve economies of scale.
A relatively untapped resource which could be enhanced with the roll-out of the National Broadband Network is the development of business in the sought-after area of Indigenous ecological knowledge. Arts, science, biodiversity and pharmaceutical areas have long held Indigenous ecological knowledge in high regard. The access opened up by the NBN would allow Indigenous elders and leaders to conference with interstate companies without having to leave their homes in the Territory - an important consideration, particularly in the areas of health, family and research.
In the area of the arts, Kathy Keele, CEO of the Australia Council says:
- The National Broadband Network will change the way we make and share artistic practice, not only across the country but across the world.
We will never know what could be done if Tony Abbott has his way and reduces Australia’s opportunity to move with the rest of the world.
In conclusion, in many ways Territorians do not enjoy the same easy access to services available in other states. The NBN would put Territorians on an equal footing. It will benefit all of the Northern Territory. In contrast, the Liberal government’s grab-at policy will leave the Territory sadly lacking.
Madam Speaker, this is an important issue for Territorians, and I thank the minister for bringing this statement to the House.
Dr BURNS (Public and Affordable Housing): Madam Speaker, I have been listening carefully to the debate on this very important topic. After the outburst by the member for Greatorex, I was asked by the media why we are debating this tonight. As the member for Greatorex said, is it not a rehash of what has been placed on the Parliamentary Record previously? What is the relevance of this; it is a national policy? My response is: it is a national policy, however, we are debating it through the prism of what is in the best interests of the Northern Territory’.
I have heard much passion from the member for Arnhem, the minister and, most recently, the member for Barkly. I also enjoyed the offering by the member for Brennan.
I was taken aback at the frustration and anger of the member for Greatorex. He was called on relevance quite a number of times, and eventually came to the important issue of national broadband with about five minutes remaining. He was accusing government of finishing parliament early by finishing at 6 pm. He kept asking me the time; I can tell him what time it is now. The big hand is on 20 and the little hand is on 7. The minister has to wrap up yet; we are still working. We have adjournments to go, and I remind the member for Greatorex the opposition can put forward matters of public importance.
There was a time I was glad the opposition was putting matters of public importance forward around this time of night - issues government may not have been comfortable with in some cases, calling government to account, putting forward an opposition view on important issues affecting the Territory. I have not seen much of that lately. Maybe next week they will, and I welcome that. However, to accuse government of being lazy - he should be looking in his own back yard, his own party room, his own strategy. He might not be part of the strategy group, which might explain the frustration. I get the feeling it is very deep-seated. That is another issue for the member for Greatorex.
NBN is an important issue. There are important differences between what the Labor Party is putting forward as policy and what Tony Abbott has most recently put forward, and it deserves debate in this House. As the minister said, it will have a big effect in the Territory, particularly if Tony Abbott is elected, because they are going with a free enterprise model. Free enterprise models in telecommunications in the past have meant the more remote parts of the Territory with smaller populations, smaller avenue for profit and costlier operations, miss out. That is why we are debating this tonight, and why we have this important statement before the House.
In earlier debate, the Minister for Business and Employment said words to the effect of: a choice between Labor which delivers a social, environmental and economic transformation for all Territorians, and the Liberal opposition that delivers a return of the failed era of their broadband policies. Further on he said something like we want Australia to lag behind countries such as Korea, Japan, Singapore and much of Europe.
Stark words, and what we are debating this evening. The member for Fong Lim also spoke with passion, and I commend him for his offering.
The minister said building the NBN delivers over 25 000 jobs nationally each year, and in the Territory alone the NBN and related investment will be in excess of $1bn over the next eight years. These are substantial investments in the Northern Territory, and it is important we see some of the contrast. Regarding contrast and connections, the Liberal Party policy indicates it will only make available high-speed connection to broadband where, by contrast, the NBN guarantees 93% of premises will be connected to high-speed broadband. That is quite a stark difference.
The minister said building the NBN delivers over 25 000 jobs nationally each year, and in the Territory alone the NBN and related investment will be approximately $1bn over the next eight years. These are substantial investments in the Northern Territory, and it is important we see some of the contrast and connections. The Liberal Party policy indicates it will only make available high-speed connection to broadband, whereas the NBN guarantees 93% of premises will be connected to high-speed broadband. That is a stark difference.
The Minister for ICT Policy referred to Internet Industry Association Chief Executive, Peter Coroneos’ statement that the private sector has had time to deliver broadband and has only made the decision to do so where it makes commercial sense. The minister asked: where does it make commercial sense? It is where the population centres are. It is not in the diverse population and geography of the Northern Territory. It might be marginal in Darwin and Palmerston but it would not be viable out bush, and in Tennant Creek, Katherine and Alice Springs.
I listened with interest to the member for Arnhem speak with knowledge and appreciation of the fibre-optic connection through her electorate and into the electorate of Nhulunbuy. I have heard very positive things about that connection. It was done at quite a cost, and logistically was quite difficult. Anyone who has travelled in that beautiful electorate will know there is some mountainous, rocky terrain with many swamps and river crossings. I commend whoever designed and installed that high-speed optic cable all the way to Nhulunbuy. I am told it has had a positive effect on residents and businesses in those remote areas.
The member for Fong Lim argued wireless technology is the way to go. I listened very carefully to what he had to say; however, looking at that optic-fibre connection convinced me. From what the member for Arnhem said, it is the way to go. Julia Gillard and the Labor government are on track with that promise. The people of Australia will make that very important decision in a week or so.
Just to recap, Labor has committed to build a National Broadband Network to deliver affordable high-speed broadband services to all Australians, no matter where they live, benefiting Territorians in particular. In stark contrast, a Tony Abbott-led Coalition would shut down the National Broadband Network and rely on outdated technology, sending the Territory, and Australia, into the digital dark ages. He does not understand how critical broadband is to education, health, and business, and the future of the Northern Territory. Under Labor, the NBN will install optic fibre to homes and businesses in urban centres of Darwin, Palmerston, Nhulunbuy, Katherine, Tennant Creek, and Alice Springs. It will also deliver the next generation of wireless and satellite services to the Territory. Speed would be significantly faster than experienced today, and we would be placed to meet the demands of the future. Under the Labor plan, the NBN will deliver 25 000 jobs nationally every year, and be worth $1bn in related investment over eight years.
The Coalition policy stands to put these jobs and investment in Australia’s technological future at risk. The NBN is due to roll out in the Casuarina area in the first half of 2011. The Labor government’s NBN stands to genuinely benefit people in the bush in the Territory, as well as urban centres. For the Territory’s education and training system, this stands to benefit our students greatly. It will give our students, teachers, and trainers access to more resources and capacity to deliver quality programs. Tony Abbott would throw the Territory into the Dark Ages.
Madam Speaker, I commend the minister’s statement to the House. We are all interested in the outcome of the forthcoming election. It is going to be very close; nothing can be taken for granted. The Australian people, in their wisdom, will make a decision on who will govern this country for the next three years.
Mr HAMPTON (Information, Communications and Technology Policy): Madam Speaker, I thank all members for their contribution to this statement on the NBN. We are all politicians in this House, and politics will come into the debate; I do not have an issue with that. That is the job we are in; I fully understand that. I genuinely say thank you to all members, although I was bitterly disappointed with the member for Greatorex.
Our last debate on information communication technology was the first for five or six years; it is a subject we do not touch on often. It is an important subject for the Northern Territory. As my colleague, the member for Johnston, said, we are in the midst of a federal election, we are politicians representing different parties; however, we all represent Territorians. If we cannot come into this House where laws are made for Territorians and discuss issues as important as this during a federal election, what is the point of coming here? Obviously, the member for Greatorex is trying to make a judgment on his position in this House.
It is a vitally important issue for the Northern Territory. Watching the news recently you can see the National Broadband Network and the federal opposition’s policy on broadband is important for the country. As the member for Barkly said, NBN is the biggest nation building project in Australia’s history. As parliamentarians representing Territorians, we should be debating the best way forward with a broadband policy and model for the Northern Territory and for Territorians - vitally important.
The national debate has been continuing over the last week. That is politics; people believe they have different or better models than the other. Some of it is based on the principles and values of our political parties. On one hand you have a conservative party which says this will put us into debt; we do not need to spend that much money, we will just spend $5bn or $6bn. On our side of the House, as Labor Party members, we hold values of social justice, of ensuring everyone, no matter where they live, has access to services, particularly employment, education and training. Technology is such an important part of that service delivery in the 21st century. We have different opinions; of course we do, we are representing different parties. To say this is a rehash and we should not be discussing it is wrong; I refute that.
I have been Minister for Information, Communications and Technology Policy over the last two years, and it has been a good portfolio. The Northern Territory has punched above its weight in moving ahead and getting this type of infrastructure and technology. When I first became minister I wanted to see where we were going, being acutely aware of information, communication and technology, and how fast it is moving.
When I was going to school in 1985 no one thought about mobile phones. In 2010, kids have technology with the Internet, Skype and Facebook. We did not think about that in 1985 - only 20 years ago. When I became minister I wanted to ensure the Northern Territory kept up with technology. We have significant challenges living in Alice Springs. I wanted to ensure I could make a difference, particularly for those living in remote communities. Part of that is having the technology and infrastructure in the bush to enable service delivery, and health and education issues can be dealt with properly and with appropriate technology.
My great mentor and predecessor, Peter Toyne, someone well-known to members of this House, was a real techno, an IT visionary. Before entering politics, he worked with the Yuendumu community and the Warlpiri people in the Tanami Desert setting up the Tanami Network. That was visionary stuff by Peter. While his dreams may not have been fulfilled, it made a significant impact on those people’s lives. I recall going to Yuendumu in the late 1980s and meeting Peter. With the Tanami Network, I saw Warlpiri people sit in a room at Yuendumu, 330 km from Alice Springs, talking to university students in America and exchanging ideas in bush medicines and traditional knowledge. That was in the late 1980s and early 1990s. It really opened my eyes and gave me the vision to say, as ICT minister, we need to ensure we get this type of infrastructure and technology into the bush, because that is where the future is. We need to keep that can-do attitude alive and well, as Australians and Territorians, and then look at places such as Utopia.
The member for Barkly said his experiences as a teacher in the Barkly were based around the old HF radio. In 2010, people in Utopia still rely on this form of communication; it is quite remarkable. Utopia has some of the best health outcomes for people living on homelands, yet they rely on the oldest pieces of telecommunication. Imagine what they could do with broadband or fibre or access to wireless - satellite technology to deliver their health services ...
Ms Carney: Do we have a birthday?
Mr HAMPTON: Whose is it?
A member: Burnsie.
Madam SPEAKER: I understand it is the 40th anniversary of his 21st birthday.
Mr HAMPTON: I would like to wish my colleague, the member for Johnston, a very happy birthday. Not sure how old; happy birthday, Burnsie.
Getting back to NBN, the Treasurer gave a good economic case for the NBN, and other members have said for jobs and the economy the NBN is important to the Northern Territory. We need to continue to roll out the NBN if we are going to prosper into the 21st century.
Again for the record, the NBN will deliver over 25 000 jobs nationally every year. In the Territory alone, the NBN and related investments will be more than $1bn over the next eight years. That is a staggering economic argument for the NBN roll-out, particularly in the Northern Territory.
Organisations such as the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the OECD, looked at what short-term cost savings would be needed in the electricity, healthcare, education and transport sectors to justify an investment into a fibre to the home network such as the NBN. They found, on average, a cost saving of between 0.5% and 1.5% in each sector over 10 years resulting from a broadband investment would justify the cost.
With regard to the economic argument, the NBN stacks up and is rolled out as we speak. If there was a change of government, why stop a nation building project such as the NBN while it is being rolled out? In Tasmania the second competitive backhaul line has been completed. During one of my very first meetings with the federal minister, Senator Conroy, in Melbourne, when arguing for the Territory to be short listed to have a second competitive backhaul line, it shocked me that Darwin was the largest regional centre in Australia not to have a second competitive backhaul line. The only line running through the Territory is owned by Telstra, and to find Darwin was the largest capital city or centre in Australia not to have that second competitive line was staggering. There is no better reason to continue to roll out NBN and the second competitive backbone through the Northern Territory.
At Territory Technology Solutions this week I spoke with people involved in business who fully endorse the NBN; why not, it makes good business sense for them as well.
The costs some businesses are paying for their Internet services are remarkable. I strongly believe we cannot afford not to build the NBN, and it has already started. If there was a change of government, why stop something which has already started?
The member for Casuarina mentioned a range of exciting ways the NBN can contribute to better, more efficient and effective conduct in matters in his portfolios; in particular, pastoral and agriculture, and health as well.
In Alice Springs last year I hosted the ministerial council meeting of Communication ministers, where we conducted presentations for all ministers, including the federal minister, Senator Conroy. We presented the case of remote health services, particularly our clinics, and the opportunities medical carts could bring to the Northern Territory - medical carts being technical equipment placed in remote clinics. This would allow the visiting doctor or nurse to communicate directly with a specialist in Sydney, or America. It would help provide specialist advice while the patient is in the remote health clinic, say at Yuendumu, and receive advice through this medical cart from a specialist anywhere in the world.
Part of our presentation was the argument the Northern Territory should get a big slice of the digital region’s cake. We were successful in getting the biggest slice based around our presentation of health and remote clinics, and the need for equipment such as medical carts for our doctors, nurses and patients.
One of my constituents, Roy Chisholm from Napperby Station, travelled overseas on holiday. He was in Argentina, or somewhere in South America, and could monitor his bores on Napperby Station through the Internet. It was quite remarkable. This is where technology is heading. The minister for Primary Industry mentioned it, and the importance of the NBN and this type of technology to his portfolio.
The member for Arnhem described how fast, reliable and affordable broadband is, and a key to achieving a vision for Territory growth towns. Members on this side of the House fully understand that, particularly bush members, as it is always an issue when we visit remote clinics, the shire offices and the stores - what fast, affordable and cheap broadband services would mean for them. It is vitally important to growing our growth towns for them to have opportunities comparable to any other rural town in Australia.
The member for Fong Lim talked about his experiences and, as much as we play politics, I accept the member for Fong Lim does have much experience, particularly at the federal level, and I listened to what he had to say. As politicians we do not always agree on what each person says, and he believes in the opposition’s policy.
The member for Greatorex was very disappointing in such an important debate in this House.
The member for Nelson hit the nail on the head saying our growth towns need broadband; I could not agree more. He also talked about broadband over power lines. That is something we are thinking about - multiple use over existing facilities. It would be difficult in the Top End with lightning strikes during the Wet Season. I do not know how reliable or safe that infrastructure would be; however, we are looking at it. Power lines are a slower way to run things, and most places in the Territory are off the grid. It is something we are considering. We are looking into multiple use over existing facilities. The alternative to using power lines to run broadband is broadband can run the power lines with those smart grids. We are also looking at that.
Touching on the economics of it again, I have talked to several Darwin businesses. We were at Territory Technology Solutions only this week, and to highlight the need for the NBN, one business in Darwin is paying up to $18 000 for a connection which would cost $2000 in Sydney. This demonstrates the need for the NBN. If the opposition win the election they should not pull the plug on it.
Some members touched on the Arnhem fibre-optic project. On becoming the minister, I had the vision. I am proud to see some of this happening, particularly the Arnhem fibre-optic project: 800 km of fibre from Jabiru to Nhulunbuy. It is transforming the lives of many people. As well as fibre in the ground, there are upgrades to exchanges which are vitally important for some island communities.
Madam Speaker, the NBN in the Northern Territory is 21st century. It is similar to the way the pioneers thought of the old telegraph line when the Territory was settled – like the Stuart Highway and, in more contemporary terms, the Adelaide to Darwin railway line. The Territory government can be proud of its position in ensuring 21st century technology and infrastructure is delivered to the Territory. Our kids and grandkids, in 50 years time, will be looking back at the NBN, the second backhaul line through the Northern Territory, as we do regarding the old telegraph line – as visionary; a nation building project. I support it, and am glad this government continues to have the can-do attitude to pursue this important project.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Madam Speaker, I acknowledge the contribution to the Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services of Assistant Commissioner Mark McAdie, who has retired after 35 years of dedicated service. Mark officially retired on 4 August. There is no doubt his knowledge and expertise will be sorely missed in the Northern Territory Police Force and the Australasian policing scene.
Amongst other achievements over his three decades of sworn service, Mark was awarded the Australian Police Medal. He also has a Bachelor Degree in Economics, a Postgraduate Certificate in Applied Management, and a Masters Degree in Public Policy and Administration, all obtained by external studies whilst employed by the Northern Territory Police. Further, he was Chairman of the Trustees of the Police Supplementary Benefit Scheme, and President of the Northern Territory Police Legacy. For good measure, he is also an Associate Fellow of the Australian Institute of Management. It is a pretty impressive effort for a bloke who joined the Northern Territory Police Force on 30 June 1975, aged 18.
Mark McAdie commenced duties in the Information Bureau in Darwin and was later transferred to General Duties, Katherine in November 1975. The then Constable McAdie transferred to the Forensic Science section in Darwin in August. His appointment to the Northern Territory Police Force was confirmed in November 1976. Mark also worked at Adelaide River, Batchelor, Garden Point, Groote Eylandt, Daly River, Jabiru, Oenpelli, Pine Creek, Yulara, and Tennant Creek.
Mark was promoted to Constable First Class in 1979, Senior Constable in November 1981, and Sergeant Third Class in March 1982. In September 1984, Mark received a Commissioner’s Commendation for his performance of duties after a Mack truck prime mover was deliberately driven into the crowded bar of the Inland Motel at the base of Uluru. As members might recall, five people were killed and another 16 seriously injured in that tragedy on 18 August 1983.
Mark achieved the rank of Senior Sergeant in May 1986 before being transferred, in July 1986, to OIC Tennant Creek Police Station. Whilst OIC Tennant Creek, he tackled the perennial problem of motor vehicle accidents and put together a significant report, which was circulated throughout the agency before implemented into a road safety scheme.
Mark achieved the rank of Superintendent in September 1992, took on the role of Superintendent of the Police College before relieving as Superintendent Northern Division, Central Region as Superintendent Command Support Operation Command, Superintendent Command Support Officer, and Superintendent Darwin City Division. The then Superintendent McAdie also relieved as Commander for Professional Responsibility from December 1997 to May 1998, before being promoted full-time to Commander Darwin Region.
By June 2002, he had been promoted to the rank of Assistant Commissioner Human Resource Services Command. He received the Australian Police Medal in the 2006 Queen’s Birthday Honours List.
Assistant Commissioner McAdie has also relieved as Deputy Commissioner on numerous occasions since 2002. In May 2007, Mark was transferred to Assistant Commissioner Crime and Support Portfolio, the position he maintained until his retirement.
Mark McAdie gave 35 years of meritorious service. There is no doubt Mark made a significant contribution to the development of the Northern Territory Police Force. On behalf of the Northern Territory government, I extend my thanks to Mark for his more than three decades of service to our police force and Territorians.
As Police minister, I personally have worked closely with Mark on many occasions. He was always highly professional, a real problem solver, a team player and very dedicated to, and proud of, our Northern Territory Police Force. It is a uniform Mark wore with genuine pride. Whilst Mark’s knowledge and experience will be sadly missed, I wish him all the best as he embarks on the next phase of his life.
I would also like to speak about the recent retirement of Senior Constable Peter Russell. Peter retired from the Police Marine and Fisheries Enforcement Unit on 1 July, following 28 years of sworn service. He transferred to the Marine and Fisheries unit after six years as a Fisheries Officer in the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries. Peter set high personal standards, and his career was marked by consistently high levels of integrity. This is evidenced by the respect in which he is held by all sectors of the fishing fraternity, who saw him as an officer who showed no favouritism in the execution of his duties. His service included a number of notable milestones. He took part in a significant number of long-range land and sea patrols in remote and inhospitable environments around the full length of the Territory coast. These patrols were often undertaken without support in all weather and sea conditions, primarily in a very small craft.
This is an amazing statistic. It is estimated in Peter’s 28 years of sworn service he was involved in more than 1900 days in the field, which equates to almost nine-and-a-half years of bush and maritime patrols. Peter also played a key role in advising Northern Territory government agencies in the framing of policies and legislation to protect Territory fisheries. He frequently represented the Territory police on management, advisory and legislative review communities, consistently performing duties well above his rank. In fact, in 2008 he was seconded to the Department of Justice to provide advice on issues surrounding the Blue Mud Bay High Court case. He went on to work on a review of the NT Fisheries Act following the High Court’s decision in that case.
In addition to his Fisheries work, Peter also relieved at the then Criminal Investigation Unit between 1988 and 1989, working on several high-profile cases. One of these was the so-called Stone Country murders, which saw five people killed and the perpetrators receiving a life sentence. Peter also played a role as a principal planner in the development of the Indigenous Community Marine Rangers Program. This included dedicating a significant amount of his own time working with Fisheries and Charles Darwin University in the development of accredited training for the ranger program. I am told the program has received critical national acclaim.
I also touch on Peter’s contribution to the Marine and Fisheries Enforcement Unit investigations and prosecutions. He played an important role in the development of improved evidence gathering and presentation methodologies for compliance and enforcement matters. This led to a notable increase in prosecution rates, and set a standard for the unit’s compliance and enforcement. From 2002 until his retirement, Peter had responsibility as Primary Police Prosecutor for Marine and Fisheries matters. In that time, prosecutions resulted in the forfeiture to the Crown of two large barramundi vessels, 10 smaller mud crab fishing boats, four large barramundi fishing tenders, 3 km of gill netting, and three vehicles.
During his 28 years of service Peter received several commendations for meritorious service. These included a Commissioner’s unit commendation to the Marine and Fisheries Enforcement Unit for their role in the hunt for Brett Mann. Brett disappeared in the flooded Finniss River whilst quad biking with his mates. The search extended from 22 December 2003 to 5 January 2004. The unit’s commendation for its work under trying circumstances pretty well sums up Peter’s approach to the job. It read:
- All officers involved in the search and rescue operation displayed a high degree of professionalism, determination and commitment under extremely adverse and, at times, dangerous conditions.
Peter leaves the service with a legacy of which he can be justly proud. He committed the best part of his adult life to the protection of life on our waters, as well as the protection of our all-important marine stocks. I trust his retirement will be as fulfilling as his career.
Madam Speaker, our Territory Police Force has seen two very significant people retire recently, Mark McAdie and Peter Russell. I wish both of them all the best in their retirement.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I sometimes wonder if the Chief Minister is making these speeches just to make me feel old. I remember when I first met Sergeant Third Class Mark McAdie, and Peter Russell, as well. I too offer my best wishes to both gentlemen and thank them for the communication and contact I had when in the police force, particularly Mark McAdie. He was in the training college when I first met him. I was one very bewildered young police cadet, and it was the guidance of people like Mark McAdie, Jock McPherson, and others in the college which set me on the road of learning the lessons of life.
I will speak on Little Mindil. Until now I have deliberately remained fairly silent on the issue of Little Mindil, having a ‘wait and see’ attitude. When I heard Little Mindil was to be redeveloped, but largely remain open space, that was not entirely inconsistent with CLP policy prior to the 2005 election where the idea was to keep it public open space. Moreover, Little Mindil was, until recently, a fairly unremarkable piece of space - a vacant lot; a piece of Crown Land with coffee bush growing on the cliff face. I considered the improvements allowed by the Northern Territory government, under arrangements with the casino, would be an improvement.
I congratulate the casino on the work they have done in the area. However, my concern in relation to this matter is the enlarging chasm between that which was promised and what is occurring.
Whilst I am aware the property will remain the possession of the Northern Territory government, the leasing arrangements will ultimately see the transfer of title freehold to the casino. The reason I am concerned is there were many reassuring words uttered by the government in relation to the Little Mindil site. I point out the media release from 9 October 2006 from the then Minister for Planning and Lands, titled: Little Mindil Myths Dispelled - Public Space and Rehabilitation Focus. In that media release there is an attachment, Madam Speaker, and I seek leave to table the attachment.
Leave granted.
Mr ELFERINK: This shows the Little Mindil site in the form of an aerial photograph with a zone marked ‘Extent of Development’ and other zones marked ‘Public Access’ and ‘Rehabilitation of Escarpment’.
I was led to believe by that and other media releases, including the one of 9 June 2008, certain things were going to be guaranteed under the arrangements, such as the public access, the escarpment would be rehabilitated - nothing more. In fact, any person looking at this aerial photograph would see the extent of the development suggests the area of Little Mindil to be dealt with was not going to include the escarpment beyond straightforward rehabilitation.
I draw members’ attention to the Northern Territory government’s Land Information System which shows the same area. Whilst the media release from the Minister for Planning and Lands - at that time the member for Karama - shows areas for rehabilitation, those areas are part of the land to be transferred freehold ultimately to the casino, which includes the top of the escarpment directly opposite the old heritage site.
I have spoken to several people who tried to visit the area during the time of the Darwin Cup Ball. They were met by security guards who said they were not allowed to approach the fence overlooking the site. Moreover, they were allowed to listen to the music as long as they did not go to the fence. It has been suggested it was a matter of public safety. If that was true the casino would post a security guard there at all times, particularly in the evening.
No, the casino has extended to that area a proprietorial right over the land which means they see the land as their own. Rumour has it they did not even want that; it was forced upon them by government. That is an issue for another day.
I am concerned that proprietorial right already being exerted by the casino will be exerted in a much more aggressive fashion once title ultimately transfers to the casino in about eight years time.
That area is sufficiently large to allow for construction of a building and, once the title is transferred to the casino, who knows what it will build on that site. I point out to members the Land Information System has the top of the escarpment zoned as tourist/commercial, which means it will ultimately be able to be built on.
I also note from the Land Information System another promise made by government will not be supportable under this title arrangement. That is because the primary block, the area of Little Mindil below the escarpment which will be transferred to the casino, will go to lower than the high water mark of the beach. The promise the beach can be constantly accessed cannot be maintained by this government once title is transferred.
Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table this printout from the NT Land Information System for the information of honourable members.
Leave granted.
Mr ELFERINK: It is clear to see the boundary of the block extends beyond the height of the high water mark, which means if the tide is in and the casino wishes to exert its proprietorial right over the block, people will not be able to traverse Mindil Beach over Little Mindil without having to go for a swim, or get permission from the future owners of this block.
I obtained briefings from the casino relating to its intention for the site, and I thank casino management for that. The goodwill and honour demonstrated by SKYCITY management relating to intentions cannot be guaranteed into the future. Once title is transferred to the casino, whoever owns the casino – and it does not have to even be the current owner - may exert its proprietorial rights in a more aggressive way than the proprietoral rights we saw exerted recently.
All manner of assurances were given by this government …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, your time has expired.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, Minyerri is about 270 km south-east of Katherine by road, and a great community in the Barkly electorate. Like a number of remote schools, Minyerri did not have a covered learning area for school and sporting activities. Through the BER, Minyerri School secured $850 000 in funding to address this as a matter of priority. The school had also secured $1.1m in Closing the Gap funding to deliver an early learning centre.
To deliver the project efficiently for the most benefit to the school and the community, Doyle Contracting was awarded the two components as a package of works. I am pleased to report Minyerri now has a 544 m2 covered outdoor learning area including an assembly area, a raised stage, fold-down basketball backboards, rebound grand slam court surface, and storage. The new early learning centre includes a large activity room, landscaped play area, kitchenette, ablution facilities, an office, and storage areas. Importantly, the early learning centre has the capacity to meet future growth needs of the community.
I had the pleasure of attending the official opening of the new centre at Minyerri School last month, and what a great event. I was greeted at the school gate by a delegation of students and the deputy chair of the school council. I was escorted to an assembly to witness and be part of performances by students, speeches, and a very moving occasion where the school community rose to sing the National Anthem. I was also taken on a tour of the school, and in each of the classrooms and learning areas, both outdoor and indoor, the intricacies of their school program was explained to me with great pride.
The irony for me when I was invited to speak at the opening was not far to my right were the silver bullets of the existing Minyerri School - the original school at Hodgson Downs. I commented on how far we had come since the days of silver bullets which were delivered to pastoral property schools as their school infrastructure, and to witness today this incredible, high-tech, comfortable and supportive school environment. It was great to talk with the principal, Mr Neil Gibson, who has devoted over 20 years of his life and career to the community of Minyerri. It was great to talk about what works in delivering improved educational outcomes.
I was pleased to learn not only did a high standard of educational excellence exist at Minyerri School, but also the links to secondary education and the encouragement and mentoring of Minyerri students to travel away from home and attend boarding schools in the Northern Territory and interstate. It was also pleasing to hear of the Minyerri School links with southern tertiary institutions – the visiting teacher education and general students who came from southern universities.
I was pleased to host a group of Year 6 and Year 7 Minyerri students at Parliament House this week. They certainly enjoyed their education outreach program delivered by the Legislative Assembly, and their visit to the fifth floor. We were able to stand on the verandah on the fifth floor, gaze onto Darwin Harbour and talk about shipping, live cattle export, and Darwin as the capital city and the gateway to Asia. The students enjoyed their time which capitalised on not only the knowledge they are learning at school, but also their dreams as future Territorians.
Bottom line, Madam Speaker: we must acknowledge the improved infrastructure which supported better program delivery at Minyerri School. The only possible way that infrastructure was delivered was through the BER. This story is just one of many across the Territory. I hope, no matter what happens on 21 August, the federal government will continue to deliver this fabulous BER program throughout the Northern Territory.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Madam Speaker, I begin by acknowledging Seniors Month. Seniors Month is a great opportunity to recognise the valued contribution seniors make to the Territory. Senior Territorians are valued members of our community, playing an important role in anchoring young generations to the cultural heritage. Our whole community is richer for the wisdom and experience offered by our seniors. This government appreciates the role seniors have in the community and the valuable contribution they make to our lives.
This is why, in celebrating Seniors Month, we have awarded over $46 000 in grants to help fund a raft of events across the NT. Some of these grants include $1000 to National Seniors in Alice Springs to help fund a golf coaching and practice day for seniors. I thank Jan Dowson for her efforts in organising these events. Also, Katherine South Primary School and Sharni Wilson received almost $600 to host a reading theatre lunch with presentations of poems and stories. The NT Stolen Generation Aboriginal Corporation in Darwin received $500 to host songs and stories about the Stolen Generations, followed by lunch. A special thank you to Rosie Baird for organising such an important event.
Earlier this month, renowned culinary genius, Maggie Beer, as Senior Australian of the Year, joined over 100 guests in Parliament House; it was great to have her here. Many of you may have seen Maggie in a role as co-host of the ABC program, The Cook and the Chef. Maggie is a culinary icon whose passion for food brings joy to many Australians. Senior Territorians in Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Mataranka, Katherine, Adelaide River and Palmerston also had the opportunity to catch up with Maggie during her visit. I had the great pleasure of handing over one of the first early season mangoes to Maggie. I can only imagine what dish she made with that mango - perhaps a mango sorbet.
I also mention some of the other events which make Seniors Month not only enjoyable but informative and rewarding as well. Centrelink is hosting a raft of seminars to assist seniors with financial matters. The NT Council of the Ageing is hosting a variety of events to promote healthy ageing and exercise for seniors. Local councils are holding information seminars to help seniors stay up-to-date with the latest computer technologies. In fact, Darwin City Council is having an event to connect seniors with the popular social networking site Facebook. Those who do not know what Facebook is should go along.
I acknowledge everyone who is working hard behind the scenes to make Seniors Month such a success. To those people, I say thank you for all your efforts. Thank you to Rhonda Picard, Valerie Dreon and Brian Hilder from Senior Citizens Inc for working especially hard in bringing events, not only to the Top End, but to Central Australia as well. Robyn Lesley, the new Chief Executive of COTA, and Brian Hilder have done a great job. They put in an exceptional amount of effort promoting a number of events. That includes the motorcycle adventure event on Saturday which will provide great excitement. I will be attending the event, which has also been helped by the Ulysses Club bikers.
I also thank the good people at Centrelink for hosting many forums across the NT. I thank John Hughes, the CEO at Coomalie Shire Council, also Gary Cleary at the Barkly Shire Council, Chris Hill from the Victoria Daly Council at Nauiyu community, and many others who made a valuable contribution to Seniors Month across the Territory.
The Council of the Ageing has worked tirelessly to bring a whole range of events to fruition. Its traditional bush tucker feast was a real hit, with seniors enjoying some great traditional Australian tucker. The National Seniors Race Day promises to be a full day of exciting events, great food and high fashion.
Annette Roberts and the Royal Lifesaving Society will be hosting a Grey Medallions event in which seniors can learn about water safety, resuscitation, aquatic exercises and survival skills. Worth special mention is the toy making class hosted by Ivan Walsh and the Pensioners’ Workshop Association Incorporated in which seniors were able to get together and help make toys for disadvantaged children. This shows what a great bunch of people we have in the Territory and what great Territory spirit.
All round the Territory local clubs, councils and businesses are taking part in recognising the wonderful contribution seniors make to the Territory and, when it comes to senior Territorians, we do listen. We have appointed a Senior Territorians Advisory Council to advise on seniors’ issues and government programs and policies. The council is made up of people from all walks of life across the Territory. I especially thank Janet Durling and all the good people from the STAC for the depth of detail provided to me in the recent STAC working plan. I cannot say enough about this invaluable group in helping government make decisions.
We continue to work hard to keep seniors in the Territory and our concession scheme is the most generous in the nation. We provide generous subsidies for electricity, water, sewerage, spectacles, council rates and garbage rates. Seniors can also access interstate and overseas travel subsidies with half a standard airfare every two years or one full airfare every four years. We have recently introduced free bus travel for seniors, free driver’s licence and increased motor vehicle registration concessions.
To help senior Territorians, we have removed the 50% cap on the concession for power accounts, and also a stamp duty concession is being introduced for seniors of up to $8500 off the stamp duty payable for members downsizing their properties. We are offering a generous scheme because we want our senior Territorians to stay longer in the Territory as we are better off for it.
We will continue to deliver for senior Territorians. I encourage everyone to participate in celebrating Seniors Month at one of the many events which appear in the Seniors Month calendar. Anyone requiring a copy of the calendar can find it on the website www.lifestyle.nt.gov.au or contact my office. I hope everyone enjoys Seniors Month.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016