2014-10-30
Madam Speaker Purick took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, you have on your desk – and I see a lot of you have them on already – a red ribbon for Wear Red and Educate in memory of Daniel Morcombe. The foundation and the family are working with the community and governments around the country to keep our children safe. Thank you, honourable members and I thank the government for providing them for everyone.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, 25 members of the Legislative Assembly now have an opportunity to talk about TIO and its future. I should say 24 members, because the Leader of the Opposition has been kicked out of the Chamber yet again.
I acknowledge the former member for Casuarina in the gallery looking somewhat different behind the glass. Welcome, Kon, good to see you. I only wish you had stayed to take over the role of Leader of the Opposition and we might have a more intelligent debate. We could have had the former member for Wanguri debating this. He wrote a report for government saying sell TIO. We could have had an articulate debate in this Chamber. Do not worry; the 14 on this side will debate a good policy.
I move that this House acknowledges that the Territory Insurance Office is facing significant future challenges in the rapidly changing world of insurance. If the right criteria are met now may be the appropriate time to realise our value in the TIO and reinvest in building the Territory for future generations.
At the outset, no final decision has been made on the sale of TIO. However, there exists an opportunity to generate significant funds for investment through the sale of state assets. The federal government is offering a financial incentive for states and territories to sell assets to fund infrastructure. For any sale, they will provide an extra 15% of the price we receive so long as it is invested in economic infrastructure. The offer is only available for the next two years and already other states are moving to take advantage of it. I believe every state and territory is taking advantage of this, including Tasmania, although I am happy to have that challenged.
This is a rare opportunity and one that can significantly help the Territory invest in new projects and create new jobs for the future. Given these circumstances, we believe the right time to examine a sale of TIO is now.
I have put this motion before the House to have a mature debate about the current and future direction of TIO. The Territory is finally turning the corner. We can see the light at the end of the Labor Party’s debt tunnel. My government has tackled the hard decisions.
Yesterday, I outlined the benefits of our decisions as seen in the Territory Annual Financial Report, TAFR, but there is more work to be done. The world continues to change rapidly and the Territory is not immune. We have to change and adapt. For 11 long years of closed-shop thinking the Leader of the Opposition and her union mates stripped the Territory of its opportunities.
I started this boom-and-bust argument in the May budget. We have been looking for a mature, educated and rational debate about the way governments manage our Territory. We have to balance the books; we cannot be forever in debt. We have to plan and think strategically. We have to be aware of what is happening in the world and the rest of Australia. We have to be aware that the Territory is undergoing a transitional economic phase in its history. We have to be mindful that our community and our children’s future are the most important things we, as politicians, have to be responsible for. This mature thinking and planning must be debated in parliament.
I have brought it into this Chamber for a reason. As everyone in this Chamber knows, politics in the Territory can be pretty rough, but I have set out to provide a real opportunity to have a mature debate …
Ms Walker: Then take it to a public forum that Territorians can attend.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr GILES: I call for a mature debate and the member for Nhulunbuy screams out. Let us hope the Leader of the Opposition is up to …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Offensive. I was not screaming. Interjections are part and parcel of parliamentary debate and I ask the Chief Minister to withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, if you could withdraw.
Mr GILES: Madam Speaker, I withdraw. I am quite clearly having a mature debate and you want to interject and scream across the Chamber ...
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! You have just ruled that he withdraw that word. I ask him to do so.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, please temper your words …
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, sit down. I am talking to …
Mr Tollner: I am speaking to the point of order …
Madam SPEAKER: Sit down! You do not have the call. Sit down.
Chief Minister, temper your conversation and stick to the debate rather than talking about other members of the Chamber.
Mr GILES: Yes, no worries. As I was saying before I was interrupted, I hope the Leader of the Opposition is up to the mark on this.
The insurance industry is facing local and global challenges. The increase in the number of large violent natural disasters has put pressure on insurance companies throughout the world. The Northern Territory insurance market is no different.
The Territory is growing rapidly and TIO must continue to change and adapt to these challenging and changing times. TIO is a very small player in a world market that has become extremely complex and interwoven as the world gets smaller. Although TIO has a significant number of customers in the Northern Territory, there is considerable risk for our medium- to long-term future. Worldwide competition is increasing and TIO will have to change the way it undertakes its business, and the way in which it considers its risk for different areas in the Territory, just like all other parts of Australia and the global market.
The main challenge facing TIO is to change the way in which it reweights the risk factors in the vastly different parts of the Northern Territory to maintain a competitive position with its rivals. TIO is undertaking changes to the flood insurance premiums which will result in price increases for premiums for customers in high-risk areas such as Katherine. This is inevitable. Premiums have already been increased 60% to 110% in the past five years depending on the product. TIO will continue to offer different prices in different areas according to risk. Every insurance company does this across the globe.
The Northern Territory government does not set TIO premiums for policyholders, nor does it subsidise premiums. TIO runs its business in a very competitive market and prices commercially. Earlier this year, the TIO Board set out to get a better understanding of these challenges and undertook a number of studies to determine the best way to move forward. These options include working with other Australian and global insurance companies. The outcome of this work was that it is the appropriate time to test the market to find the right buyer to take TIO into the future.
There is some very strong interest from some very good companies. However, we are determined to ensure that TIO remains in safe hands and that the brand, the people, and the policies remain on the same pathway. The TIO brand has tremendous value and the board understands that. It understands that its customers remain the most important part of the business.
Let me quote the chairman of TIO, Mr Bruce Carter, in a media release issued this week:
The insurance business is based on the principle of pooling risks to share the cost of those risks amongst large groups of people, individuals and companies. It began in the 1800s when London ship owners created an informal pool to hedge the costs of the loss of a ship at sea. It was the beginning of Lloyds.
Pooling and sharing of risk best works when those underlining risks are different; that is, if two people share the risk on their cars. They are different risks, different drivers, their cars are different makes and they live and drive in different streets. By combining this risk they reduce the likelihood and cost of a theft or accident.
When we look at cyclone cover, TIO has a very large exposure to a Darwin cyclone risk, which occurs, on average, every 40 years. Having one major risk like this does not create the same diversifying effect of spreading risk. To manage that risk it needs to be shared with people and businesses that do not have exposure to a Darwin cyclone. Within the Northern Territory we look to grow our business in the Alice Springs and Katherine regions in particular. However, those areas are not large enough to offset the exposure of Darwin.
TIO was established in 1979 to ensure Territorians had access to compulsory workers’ compensation insurance and motor accident compensation cover. Since that time TIO has evolved into a general insurance company, providing a wide range of insurance products, as well as a banking business which primarily provides home loans and holds customer deposits.
The strategic imperative for the creation of TIO no longer exists. The Territory insurance industry is a vibrant and competitive one, with in excess of 12 insurers competing for customers. Most large national insurers offer products in the Territory.
The Territory is also well served by the banking industry, with the big four banks and a raft of second tier banks and credit unions also providing services. This reflects the global nature of the finance and insurance industry. Surely, Labor is not calling the big four banks to leave the Territory in the interest of TIO banking services.
All insurers operating in the Territory offer cyclone cover and all but one offer flood insurance. Even in the area of cyclone cover, TIO is no longer the cheapest; its prices sit in the middle of the market. TIO now exists in a market where it is no longer providing a unique service, nor is it keeping competitors’ prices at the lowest.
TIO remains the last government-owned insurer and bank in Australia, with other states having privatised in the late 1980s and 1990s. TIO is limited by legislation to offering services solely within the Territory. That means it is one of the smallest insurance companies in Australia competing against national and multinational corporations.
TIO is exposed to natural disaster risk exacerbated by the fact that all of its customers are concentrated in the Territory. TIO’s competitors have more capacity to diversify and fund risk from much greater premium pools. Diversified insurers with access to global capital markets are a more efficient and effective means of managing the risks to which TIO is exposed. This concentration of risk is not a new phenomenon unique to TIO; in fact, it is what drove the change in insurance markets in the 1980s and 1990s.
State-based mutual and government insurers had accumulated significant exposure in their home states. During the 1980s and 1990s, we saw global economic forces drive the first demutualisation of these businesses, followed by the consolidation into large national businesses such as IAG and Suncorp. It is the reason QBE has achieved the majority of its business growth in the US and Europe, and for the existence of global insurers such as Allianz and Zurich.
IAG is a great example. Starting as a state-based New South Wales motoring group NRMA, it has been able to diversify New South Wales’ earthquake risk with broader exposure to Victorian bushfires through RACV, South Australian bushfires through SGIC and Western Australia’s wind and storms through SGIO. It also has exposure in New Zealand, China, India, Malaysia and Vietnam to enable it to diversify and share risk on a broad and uncorrelated basis.
TIO’s competitors can also achieve significant economies of scale. This makes it more difficult for TIO to compete in a small market against competitors that operate on a national and international basis. As TIO is a government-owned organisation, the risks associated with natural disasters, as well as the financial wellbeing of TIO, are ultimately borne by Territory taxpayers. Given that mature and developed insurance and banking markets operate in the Territory, these risks are no longer justified.
If we do not act TIO will go in the future. The Territory is also facing a challenge with the possible changes to the way in which federal Australian governments support states and territories for disaster relief. Last month, the Productivity Commission issued a draft report outlining what changes might be made. Basically, the states and territories will be required to do more in being prepared for natural disasters and having their own plans and insurance in place for a natural disaster. My colleagues will be expanding on this issue in this debate and I look forward to hearing that.
The other major challenge facing our Territory is the way in which the TIO business is structured. Basically, the Northern Territory government underwrites the risk of a disaster for every TIO policyholder, plus the NT government is responsible for covering its own risk for roads, hospitals, school and the like.
Power and Water Corporation and Darwin Port assets are self-insured. That means not only are we covering the risk of TIO policyholders we are also covering the risk for every asset the Northern Territory government holds in the Northern Territory. Under the federal government Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements (the NDRRA) the Northern Territory government does not get federal government funding for the money paid out to TIO policyholders in the event of a disaster. The NT government only gets a proportion of the federal government funds the NT government has paid out for public infrastructure. If the TIO was sold, the risk for home policyholders is passed to national and international insurance and reinsurance companies. In the event of a disaster, all the funds paid by the Northern Territory government on rebuilding public infrastructure would be eligible for federal government funding. This is a much more effective way of using NT government funds in rebuilding after any likely disaster in the future – all of which we pray will not occur. Government money will be used for public assets and, as appropriate, global financial markets would be used for private homes and business – a good partnership arrangement.
TIO will not be sold unless certain key criteria are met. These key criteria are the issues that Territorians want to ensure are not lost or given away in any sale proposal, and they will be fundamental in any Cabinet decision or consideration. The first of these criteria is to protect the TIO brand so Territorians can continue to be proud of the business that has served the Northern Territory so well since 1979. This is probably one of the easiest points of any sale to resolve. It is important that it is recognised because it is dear to the hearts of Territorians, whether Territorians insure with TIO or with any one of the 12 competitors.
We will look to select a purchaser which will continue to provide Territorians with the unique products and services they need to ensure the best possible coverage. I have talked before about the 12 insurers in the marketplace – sometimes 15, but 12 in this debate – who all offer cyclone insurance, and the majority of whom offer flood cover. These elements of the products will be critical in determining the best partner for the long-term future of TIO.
Further, we will recognise that one of the most respected attributes of TIO is that it is the local people looking after local people – Territorians. Again, these things go to the heart and the value of the brand as an asset. No one buying that asset would want to destroy the value of that brand. In fact, that is one of the reasons an organisation which would purchase TIO would do it, because they want the brand – the relationship that is established with the Territory – and that goodwill. That is what they want to buy: the relationship, the friendliness of the Territory and its people and its brand. Clearly, we will give preference to a buyer who seeks to maintain the services the community needs.
Let me make it perfectly clear: the Giles government will not be selling the MAC Scheme. The Territory’s Motor Accidents Compensation Scheme is currently managed by TIO and will be retained as a Territory government underwritten scheme administered by a new statutory commission. The Motor Accidents Compensation Scheme is funded by Territory motorists through a portion of their vehicle registration charges. The scheme provides injured people with a range of benefits to compensate for the necessary and reasonable expenses they will incur as a result of a motor vehicle accident. Through its claims management services, TIO helps people to return to health and work, or in the case of the severely injured, achieve the best possible quality of life following a motor vehicle accident. The Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act has recently been amended so the benefits applying from 1 July 2014 are aligned with the National Injury Insurance Scheme (NIIS) standards for severe injury.
TIO also plays an important role in investing in sponsorships and community events. These arrangements will remain in place regardless of ownership with sponsorships such as TIO Stadium, TIO Traeger Park Oval, the NTFL and CAFL. All have arrangements in place to at least 2016 and beyond in many areas.
Other community investments such as CareFlight have similar arrangements and are sponsored by the MAC Scheme, which will remain in government ownership, as I have said.
Any potential buyer will be keen to maintain a brand presence as strong as the TIO has today. It is no coincidence that across the country insurers are the major sponsors of AFL sporting teams and other similar properties. The West Coast Eagles is one example.
As I have explained on numerous occasions, the Northern Territory government has a plan for the future of the Territory. The federal government is currently developing a White Paper on the Development of Northern Australia and we have gone to considerable lengths to make sure we are leading that agenda.
We have established the Northern Australia Development Office to drive the Territory’s role in that region, and have appointed a new Commissioner for Indonesia and Asia who is now based in Jakarta.
We see this as a truly nation-building project, turning Australia on its head, northern Australia being the most important with the Territory leading the way. It will be a nation-building project that will increase imports, exports, employment, terms of trade and secure Australia’s position among the world’s top economies.
The challenge with the INPEX project is a drop-off of capital expenditure at the end of the construction phase of the project, an industry the CLP started in the 1980s and 1990s before Darwin LNG was up and running.
The key is to continue to drive the development of infrastructure projects which are the building blocks of our future growth, something Labor never addressed with its one-shot-in-the-locker economy. These building blocks are vital for the entire Territory economy. The CLP delivered the Adelaide to Darwin rail line by completing the Alice Springs leg. The CLP dared to bring a gas industry to Darwin. We have restored and expanded the cattle and agriculture export markets. We are further supporting the development of the resources sector and are now developing the gas pipeline link to the rest of the eastern seaboard, providing leadership to the nation. We have not heard any words of support from the evicted Leader of the Opposition.
We have developed and expanded our Defence Force infrastructure and are keen to further enhance these facilities. The CLP grasped the strategic benefits of northern Defence and it is the CLP today which supports the Force Posture Agreement between Australia and the United States calling for more troops, more length of time and more nations rotating through the Territory to do training exercises here.
However, we need continuation of these infrastructure building blocks. The federal government’s nation-building program will be the equivalent of eight new Snowy Mountain schemes built in Australia in the next six years through government asset recycling.
The Labor states – South Australia and the ACT – have signed up to this process with South Australia already announcing the sale of its Motor Accidents Commission.
Selling government assets started in 1993, led by Labor’s great leader, Paul Keating, who sold the Commonwealth Bank and Qantas. All other states and Territories, including Labor states, did it.
My Giles Country Liberals government will be establishing an infrastructure fund which will hold the proceeds of asset sales retained to directly invest in the future of the Territory. We are drawing that legislation up right now and I will introduce that in the November sittings should timing prove successful.
The government intends that the statutory fund will hold proceeds of asset sales that are retained, to be used for investment in economic infrastructure in the Northern Territory. The infrastructure fund will be administered by an advisory board appointed by Cabinet. The role of the board is to assess infrastructure projects for eligibility for financial contributions from the fund in accordance with defined criteria, and to make recommendations to the Treasurer and Chief Minister. The infrastructure and investment criteria will include the longer-term economic growth and development of the Territory, and infrastructure which promotes productivity and living standards.
Just as importantly, the fund will leverage investment from the private sector and the Commonwealth asset recycling initiative. The holdings in the fund will be invested in financial assets to ensure growth of the fund over time in accordance with the defined management investment strategy determined by Cabinet, with the managed investment program overseen by the board.
Let me again make the point: we will not be using possible sale funds accumulated from the sale of TIO to pay off Labor debt. The proceeds will be used directly in other infrastructure projects which the government will own and operate for facilitating the future growth of the community and, importantly, the economy. These projects could include a $20m rectangular sports stadium in Marrara, the $30m road on the Tiwi Islands to get forestry product to the port and drive job growth on the Tiwis, $20m for flood mitigation works in Katherine to help put downward price pressures on premiums in Katherine, $15m for improved telecommunications networks through mobile and data towers across the Territory, a $30m contribution for an Indigenous cultural centre in Alice Springs and commencement of the Sadadeen Road and Albrecht Drive bypasses.
As mentioned in Question Time, we are also looking very positively at an ambulatory care centre within Royal Darwin Hospital that would allow for an expansion of services currently being provided for outpatients and allied health clinics – primary healthcare services and day surgery – allowing for an expansion from 24 bed or chair capacity to 41, providing for an additional 37 500 occasions of service through an additional 17 treatment spaces. Costing is around $60m at this stage. These are the things we want to give back to Territorians.
Part of this model is about selling TIO, but it is about making sure that TIO remains Territorian and making sure that Territorians benefit from the re-investment strategy into community and economic infrastructure, something that Territorians would welcome. We are recycling the assets, not selling and wasting the money to pay back Labor debt.
One of the issues we will need to deal with if we are to proceed to sell TIO is creating certainty for all stakeholders. TIO, as you know, is a financial institution and holds deposits from mums and dads across the Territory and large institutions and financial investors. This is a very important point and goes to the heart of why transactions need to occur quickly. I will read that paragraph again before I go on. TIO, as you know, is a financial institution and holds deposits from mums and dads across the Territory and large institutions and financial investors. It does this to directly fund its lending activities for home mortgages.
Many of these large institutions have mandates that require them to have certain security ratings for their funds. These funds are highly liquid and will move at short notice. Currently, TIO relies on these large institutional depositors for $360m of its $600m of funds. Should there be any uncertainty when it comes to selling TIO, it is likely these depositors could withdraw their funds, leaving TIO with a liquidity shortfall of $350m. Ultimately, this would need to be supported by the Northern Territory government for a period of time.
I am sure members on both sides would agree that we would like to ensure all TIO policyholders, depositors, borrowers and employees have certainty as quickly as possible so they know their products and relationship with TIO will be unchanged under new ownership. This is why, if the time comes, we will need to move quickly and act with deliberate intent to pass legislation and make the decisions to bring about the necessary agreements to enable a sale to a successful bidder.
TIO was established to kick-start an industry that basically did not exist in the Northern Territory. Now it has matured we need to use those funds to kick-start future industries in the Northern Territory by establishing an infrastructure fund and reusing those assets.
In conclusion, it is not only incumbent on government to review our position and ownership in the insurance industry, but we would be derelict in our duty to Territorians if we did not engage in a mature conversation around whether it may be an appropriate time to realise our value in TIO and reinvest in building the Territory for future generations.
Madam Speaker, I commend this motion. I ask those reading Hansard to re-read my last few sentences about the timeliness of passing any legislation through expedited decisions during this process. This is to ensure we do not have a liquidity issue with TIO. It is not haste in government, it is an issue around liquidity. I ask all members to consider that matter.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome the debate on TIO, although I hold grave concerns, given the Chief Minister’s comments in this Chamber last night when he said we are seeking final offers and the sale will happen very quickly. That has rung the bells across the Territory with everyone who has become aware of those comments. This Chief Minister is crashing through a rapid desire to sell TIO, despite having no mandate from Territorians to sell our insurer, nor having the gumption or decency to hold a referendum about whether or not to sell TIO.
One wonders why a Chief Minister who purports to be supporting business is pursing the sale of TIO – even though in Question Time today he pretended it was TIO pursuing its own sale, which is not the case. It is the Chief Minister pursuing the sale of TIO; he is the shareholding minister of TIO. One wonders why a Chief Minister who purports to be the leader of a political party that represents business would hastily pursue the sale of TIO. The Chamber of Commerce has met businesses, and it is strongly opposed to the sale of TIO. The Chamber of Commerce has said it will be taking its concerns to government. The Chamber of Commerce said if another large insurer comes in it will have major impact on premiums, people are not really across all issues, business people are unsure about the impacts on their businesses and there are very significant concerns among business people.
The Chamber of Commerce referred to submissions to the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia, which I acknowledged in debate in parliament last night, in the very real experience that occurred in northern Queensland. It said the danger of a down-south insurer is they may not be aware of any differences between north Queensland and the Northern Territory and they lump us all together is the same risk profile. Through experience we know that to be the case. The Chamber of Commerce said the TIO equalisation across policies has been able to ease the pain on individual policyholders, and it does not want north Queensland insurance problems coming across to the Northern Territory. That is the Chamber of Commerce publicly stated position, strongly opposing the sale of TIO.
This government continues to pursue crash-through policies to the detriment of Territorians. Have you held a forum in Katherine? Have you stated the case for the sale of TIO to the residents of Katherine? Have you explained to the residents of Katherine what the policies of flood coverage are across the private insurance sector?
A caller to Mix FM today said after the Katherine floods she was paid insurance; she was insured by TIO. Her next door neighbour was not paid insurance; they were insured by a private insurer. Yesterday I was contacted by a friend who said their workmate in Katherine had rung all the private insurance companies to find if anyone would insure them privately. The answer was only one would touch them, but it would come at an extra $8500 a year.
You are crashing through to make a decision that will have dire consequences for Territorians. The need to properly insure your home does not come much more basic, as does business having the appropriate insurance coverage at an affordable premium to ensure, in the event of a natural disaster, the payments are made in a timely manner.
Chief Minister, have you, any of your Cabinet colleagues or any of your backbenchers read the reports into the insurance issues post-Queensland floods and Cyclone Yasi? If you had, you would not even be proposing this sale. One thing I value about Australians is we have an enormous ability to learn from mistakes.
Under Labor, there was a proposal brought before Cabinet to consider the sale of TIO that became a very public discussion. Under Labor, Cabinet decided not to sell. That all occurred before the Queensland floods and Cyclone Yasi, before we had the information we have today of the dire consequences of when you have only private insurance models across northern Australia. Our knowledge is greater today than it was when Labor decided not to sell for genuine reasons after hearing from Territorians that they did not want their insurer sold as they had grave concerns about their capacity to get alternative, comparable insurance coverage and the price of insurance premiums. Good governments represent their people. Good governments listen to their people. We are not seeing good government here.
The Chief Minister said, ‘In the event of the sale we are making sure TIO remains Territorian’. Nonsense! There is no insurance or banking company that is registered and operated from the Northern Territory to buy TIO. Let us be clear about this; let us stop making up nonsense. If TIO is sold, it is no longer Territorian. At least try to be honest in this debate. TIO cannot remain Territorian if it is sold, considering there is no Territorian insurance or bank to buy it. It would go to a multinational or an international company. There is no ability in restrictive sales to ensure that, into the future, the government has a lever on premiums. The escalations we have seen in northern Queensland of some 2500% would hit Territorians like a dire crashing wave of financial pain. Some of us are less affected than others. Residents in Alice Springs are less affected than residents in Katherine. Residents in post-Cyclone Tracy homes constructed under the Building Code are less affected than residents in pre-Cyclone Tracy homes. That is a fact.
I am fortunate my home in Karama is relatively young in the scheme of things. It is about 15 years old and built to code. I have plenty of friends across the community I love who are living in pre-Cyclone Tracy homes. They are not in the situation I am and they need our TIO.
Let us look at what our TIO does because we know it is a banker and an insurer. There has not been much, but there needs to be significant debate around the Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act compensation scheme that was established in respect to people who are injured or killed in motor vehicle accidents in the Northern Territory. The MAC Scheme is administered by TIO on behalf of the Northern Territory government. The scheme is funded by Territory motorists through a portion of their vehicle registration charges. It provides injured people with an entitlement to compensation for certain expenses they will incur as a result of a motor vehicle accident. Through its claims management services, TIO helps people to return to work, to health, or in the case of our severely injured, achieve the best possible quality of life following a motor accident.
In the past in another profession I cared for quadriplegics living in our community who are funded in their home attendant care through TIO’s MAC Scheme. This conversation is not occurring with them, yet they would be completely and directly affected by a change to who administers MAC. Currently it is a government-owned organisation, our TIO, that administers MAC. If you put it into private hands what happens to our quadriplegics relying on that for their life? Have you consulted with our seriously injured on the MAC Scheme? Have you done an assessment? Have you done a risk analysis? Do you care? I believe the answer to all of those is no.
The Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act and the benefits are now aligned with the National Injury Insurance Scheme standards for severe injury. It is critical to understand the detail of the effect and impact you will have on Territorians’ lives.
TIO has partnered with CareFlight to support the Darwin-based rescue helicopter. In September last year, TIO was proud to announce it would sponsor CareFlight’s Darwin-based rescue helicopter for a minimum of three years. CareFlight’s rapid response capabilities supports TIO’s goal for personal injury management and improving health outcomes. The cost of road trauma in the Territory is more than triple the national average and rapid response is key to survival and minimising injury. CareFlight works to reduce the challenges in the Territory created by the tyranny of distance and remoteness for communities in the Top End. Sponsorship of the CareFlight TIO rescue helicopter will help meet the running costs of the rapid response helicopter service which forms part of the Top End medical retrieval service which CareFlight operates on behalf of the Department of Health.
Health minister, I invite you, in your contribution to debate, to explain to us exactly what alternative provisions would be in place to ensure that critical sponsorship of CareFlight. The CareFlight TIO rescue helicopter is an integral component of CareFlight’s aeromedical service as it allows its critical CareFlight nurses and doctors to respond directly to motor vehicle crashes and other trauma patients. Patients can be stabilised by the CareFlight medical team working with community clinic nurses and St John Ambulance paramedics, then given intensive care treatment as they are flown direct to Royal Darwin Hospital.
DriveSafe NT Remote is a program which helps to close the gap on Indigenous disadvantage by providing greater access to driver training and licensing in remote Northern Territory communities. TIO provides funding for the pilot program which has led to more than 1500 driving lessons being provided, 500 learner licences issued and almost 200 provisional licences granted. TIO’s commitment has continued with further funding and has created animated training modules and innovative training tools to assist driver education in road safety areas of seat belts, drink-driving and pedestrian safety. Who will do this work? Which multinational will fund this program? I look forward to the answer from the Minister for Transport in this debate.
TIO is helping new Australians in the Territory to learn to drive through its support for the Multicultural Council of the Northern Territory’s Passport to Drive Program. The program offers driver education and training for refugees and eligible migrants, helping them to adjust to Australian road conditions and obtain a driver’s licence. TIO support was by donation of a Toyota Corolla in 2011, which is available for training and practice for those receiving their licence. Minister for Transport and Multicultural Affairs, who will support the Multicultural Council of the Northern Territory when TIO is sold?
In Darwin, housing resilience goes to risk analysis work done for and on behalf of Territorians by TIO. TIO conducted a housing study to determine how properties are affected by weather conditions over time. In May 2012, TIO engaged the James Cook University Cyclone Testing Station to conduct a non-invasive survey on 21 houses in Darwin that were built, or substantially reconstructed, during the period from about 1975 to 1980. The purpose of the survey was to determine if there were any significant impacts that would impair the house’s resilience to severe storms.
The Cyclone Testing Station forms part of the School of Engineering and Physical Sciences at James Cook University in Townsville. It is the pre-eminent, independent authority on the effects of high wind and related damage to low-rise buildings in Australia, Southeast Asia and the Pacific. The survey investigated the as-built state of houses in relation to supply drawings from the department of Lands and Planning, when available, and for details such as structural members, connection, sizes and spacing. The current condition of building elements were also inspected for age defects such as decay.
In case this one escapes your knowledge, Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment, I point out that it goes to risk and the premiums that can be set by a Territory-owned insurer having survey data and detail by a pre-eminent authority to say to their re-insurers, ‘We know what the risk profile actually is, which is why our premiums are set at this level’. A multinational will not do that. A multinational will risk-profile us higher, but you do not care. It is not about understanding the details of what has to happen or the genuine work that TIO does on behalf of Territorians.
The automated number plate recognition technology is the primary method used by NT Police to detect unregistered and uninsured motor vehicles. In 2014, TIO funded automated number plate recognition devices for the Southern Command Traffic Unit. TIO believes committing to the funding will improve road safety, increase detection of unregistered and uninsured vehicles and increase contribution to the MAC Scheme. In addition to detecting unregistered vehicles, police can use the ANPR technology to determine other offences including defective vehicles, stolen vehicles, unlicensed drivers, suspended from driving, disqualified from driving, warrant for arrest and warrant issued for arrest.
Who will do this work in the future, Minister for Transport? Who will work with police in funding the tools the police need to make our roads safer? Which multinational you intend to sell to will step into that space? Private insurers do not do that, government-owned do. They know they are corporate citizens that have a broader responsibility to our broader safety.
Joining forces with McArthur River Mining, TIO attended the annual Borroloola Show to promote road safety in the surrounding region. Borroloola has an approximate population of around 1000, of which about 90% are Indigenous. In partnership with MRM, TIO attends the Borroloola Show with interactive programs to highlight the dangers of drink-driving and educate people on the risks associated with not wearing a seat belt and speeding. MRM operates heavy vehicles, including road trains, in the vicinity of Borroloola community and has a vested interest in road safety education and providing a safe environment. Which major multinational insurer will visit the Borroloola Show in the future, Minister for Transport?
The Central Australian Football League is the Alice Springs-based AFLNT competition and runs from March to September annually. The league comprises around 600 players, of which 80% are Indigenous. Each week some players undertake a 700 km round trip just to play. AFL is loved with a passion throughout the Territory and has a special place in the culture of many Indigenous communities. In many communities footy plays a crucial role in keeping people together, giving them a sense of community and belonging and offering them an opportunity to meet and exchange news while they cheer their team on. TIO’s sponsorship of the CAFL allows it to engage with an audience that is difficult to reach through mainstream media. TIO’s goals are to increase and maintain road safety awareness in Alice Springs and remote communities and promote safer road user behaviours and attitudes, with a focus on wearing seatbelts, drink-driving, pedestrian safety and the use of child restraints. Who will take over that sponsorship when TIO is sold, minister for Sport?
TIO is currently developing a campaign to target suburban speeding. The campaign will centre on encouraging drivers to slow down around schools, parks, residential areas and suburban thoroughfares. Statistics show in the first eight months of 2013, NT police issued more than 22 000 infringement notices in the Darwin metropolitan command area. Of these, almost 18 000 were issued for exceeding the speed limit by between 1 km/h and 15 km/h. These statistics highlight the need to raise awareness about the dangers of low-level speeding. Driving above the designated speed limit, even by a few kilometres, decreases reaction time and increases stopping distance. It could be the difference between the life and death of a pedestrian, child or cyclist. Which multinational, Minister for Transport, will pick up that funding?
A series of talking posters produced in collaboration with NT Police have been distributed across 52 remote communities and eight regional centres throughout the Northern Territory. The talking posters were created in 32 different Indigenous language dialects to deliver messages about drink-driving, seat belts and pedestrian safety. The posters feature well-known past and present Indigenous AFL players to help ensure the message is relevant. Each player brings their personal experiences with road trauma and leverages their role model status within Indigenous communities. This is funded by TIO. Are you starting to get the picture, CLP, or is it that you simply do not want to know?
TIO’s You Deserve It drink-driving campaign focuses on the concept that if you drink and drive you deserve to be caught. The campaign includes television and radio commercials, billboard advertising and ads displayed on public buses. The campaign aims to raise awareness about police enforcement, but approaches the challenge from a new perspective, recognising the role drinking plays in our culture but leaving the audience with a clear choice and consequence. Our message is simple: you do not have to be drunk to be a drink-driver. If you have a few drinks – whether it is at a barbecue, at dinner with your partner or after-work drinks – plan ahead and arrange alternative transport home.
When I was the Sports minister, I understood how hard it is for our major sporting venues in capacity. The naming rights TIO took up at the Marrara AFL stadium provided crucial help to AFLNT. These are some of the ways in which TIO helps our community across the Northern Territory. It does not do it for the bottom line and as an insurer that looks at premiums; it does it as part of its corporate responsibility for the place it holds within the Northern Territory. The government has raised none of these things in debate as alternatives they would have to ensure this occurs – not one.
It has been extraordinary to watch a government that puts its effort and emphasis on spin on a website that asks for a Christmas shopping list – a wish list – instead of asking the question everyone wants to have a say on: do you support the sale of TIO?
Householders who have insurance with TIO have chosen that for a reason. Those families understand their risk profile and who provides them with the best coverage for their personal circumstances. The Chief Minister said in this parliament there are people who choose not to insure with TIO. That is right, because of their personal circumstances. But what the Chief Minister is ignoring completely is those Territorians who need to insure with TIO because of their circumstances. As I said, those Territorians stand to lose so much through the sale of TIO.
It will not be Territorian. It will not have downward pressure on premiums because it is publicly owned. It will not have timely payment. Territorians living in the storm surge zones around Darwin, Rapid Creek, Ludmilla – to name a couple – in Katherine or in pre-Cyclone Tracy homes are the ones who stand to lose the most with the sale of TIO.
Our businesses are saying not to sell TIO. Mums and dads are lining up at the shopping centres, at our offices, walking in willingly to sign petitions against the sale of TIO. Businesses are lined up saying not to sell TIO. Where is the chorus for sale? Just with the CLP. Why? Because of all the infrastructure projects that were named by the Chief Minister, some of them very worthy.
Government is unable and incapable of leveraging nation-building infrastructure from the Commonwealth – not a cent in two years. The CLP government has had two years to leverage any infrastructure funding from the Commonwealth and failed. The infrastructure funding you announced was signed off under Labor. It is a forward works pipeline through Labor’s efforts that you are relying on. You cannot deliver for the Territory, so you expect Territorians to pay for your incompetence.
There is a saying that you cannot unscramble an egg. Many people talk to me about how bad this government is, how desperate they are to see a change of government and my responsibility to fight the worst. People are imploring me to fight the sale of TIO. They are saying it to my colleagues. We take our job seriously, we continue to fight. However, what I have heard from the Chief Minister is they are seeking final offers and it will be sold quickly.
What I heard today in the Chamber from the Chief Minister is in the event of a decision to sell, they will rush through legislation because of the risk to liquidity. Chief Minister, are we staring down the barrel of a November sittings sale of TIO, with legislation on urgency? That is what I hear when you say that. Will you be honest with Territorians? No, you have not been yet. We will not be holding our breath for that to occur.
As I said in debate last night, TIO is an organisation that operates right now on a commercial basis and is fully committed to complying with prudential standards and achieving key industry performance benchmarks. TIO works to maximise the positive impact of its business activities and decisions for all its stakeholders including employees, customers, the community and its owner. It operates ethically, encouraging good conduct from suppliers, treating employees responsibly, ensuring the safety of employees, ensuring marketing statements are accurate and delivering high-quality products and service.
As you heard in my contribution today, it also contributes to the social and economic wellbeing of the Northern Territory by investing resources in activities that benefit its owner as well as other stakeholders in the Territory across sport, arts, culture, youth, health, recreation and education.
The Chief Minister said it would remain Territorian. Chief Minister, name the Territory business that could purchase TIO? You cannot, because one does not exist. That is a big fat porky. No, Chief Minister, if sold TIO is no longer Territorian; it is no longer the corporate citizen we rely on to invest across the social economic infrastructure of the Territory through the programs I have mentioned. The citizens who rely on its insurance are left hung out to dry. Good luck finding insurance – business or household – and do not expect to find it at a price you can afford. In the event of a flood or cyclone, you will experience what we saw occur in Queensland – you will not be paid. You will somehow be expected to rebuild and reconstruct your business and your life without insurance payments. That is the legacy Adam Giles wants to leave Territorians.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Health): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Chief Minister’s motion that the Territory Insurance Office is facing significant future challenges in the rapidly changing world of insurance and that if the right criteria is met, now may be the appropriate time to realise our value in the Territory Insurance Office and reinvest in building the Territory for future generations.
We have to be pragmatic about this. What you just heard from the Leader of the Opposition was an emotional account of the wonderful contribution TIO has made to the social fabric of the Territory. There is no denying this has been a wonderful experience. The last 25 years of TIO and its contribution to all facets of society – none of us in government will refute the fact that TIO has contributed enormously to sporting groups, CareFlight and a range of social and sporting initiatives that have enhanced the growth and the wellbeing of the Territory.
However, all of us heard, before the Opposition Leader gave her contribution, the Chief Minister say very clearly that the contribution TIO makes to our society will not change if it is sold. That would be a part of the contract of sale. The new insurer would take on a similar social responsibility when it comes to the Northern Territory,
One thing the Leader of the Opposition failed to recognise is times have changed. Things changed a long time ago in this space. The Territory Insurance Office remains the last government-owned insurer and bank in Australia. This did not happen recently. In Western Australia, SGIO was sold in 1994, 20 years ago; SGIO in Victoria sold in 1992, 22 years ago; GIO in New South Wales sold 22 years ago; SGIC in South Australia sold 19 years ago; GIO in Tasmania sold 21 years ago, and Suncorp in Queensland was sold in 1997.
Debate suspended.
The Assembly suspended.
MOTION
Appointment of Administrator
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly note the appointment of Mr John Hardy OAM as the Northern Territory’s 21st Administrator. Mr Hardy was appointed by Governor-General Sir Peter Cosgrove this afternoon. Her Honour Sally Thomas AC will step down as the 20th Administrator of the Northern Territory later today. I had an opportunity to catch up with her earlier this morning.
Mr Hardy is a proud Territorian with a track record of working hard in business and the community. He is an outstanding choice for this role, and I look forward to him taking up the position and representing the people of the Northern Territory over the next two years.
Mr Hardy came to the Territory in 1971, initially as a pilot, and then worked as a radiographer at the Darwin Hospital. Like many of us he never expected to stay more than a couple of years, but 43 years later he is still here and has now been appointed as the Administrator.
He made his name in the Territory as a respected businessman, establishing Airnorth in 1978 and Hardy Aviation in 1991. Mr Hardy is a strong supporter of community organisations including the Government House Foundation, the Darwin Symphony Orchestra and the Tiwi Islands Football Club. He is also a member of the Rotary Club of Darwin. He hopes to continue his community work as part of his new role. On behalf of the government and the people of the Territory I congratulate Mr Hardy on his appointment and welcome him to the challenging position of Administrator.
I thank Her Honour Sally Thomas for her outstanding contribution to the Northern Territory over the past three years. Her Honour was sworn in as Administrator on 31 October 2011. Born in Cambridge, England, she migrated to Sydney with her parents in 1945, where she attended Hornsby Girls High School. She studied law, and in 1963 was admitted as a legal practitioner to the Supreme Court in New South Wales and, subsequently, the High Court of Australia. Her Honour moved to the Northern Territory in 1978 to take up an appointment as a Stipendiary Magistrate. During her time she has proven to be a trailblazer for women in the legal profession and the Northern Territory more generally. She served as the first female magistrate in the Territory, and then the first female Chief Magistrate of the Northern Territory until 1992. Her Honour was the first female Justice of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory from 1992 to 2009.
Her Honour’s career has not been limited to the judicial system. During the immediate period following her retirement from the Supreme Court, Her Honour played at active role in the community as patron, president and chair of numerous organisations. These included Browns Mart, the Northern Territory AIDS and Hepatitis Council and the YWCA, just to name a few.
She has always held a strong interest in the tertiary education of Territorians. She was the Deputy Chair of the Northern Territory College of Queensland University, and a member of the then Northern Territory University Council from 1989 to 2003. In 2003, the Northern Territory University changed its name and became part of the expanded Charles Darwin University, and Her Honour was appointed to the Council of Charles Darwin University and elected Deputy Chancellor.
Her Honour was first appointed Chancellor of the university on 1 January 2010, a position she continues to hold today. She was Chair of the Legal Aid Commission from 1990 to 1996, Chair of the Northern Territory’s Winston Churchill Fellowship Committee from 1992 to 2004, and in 2004 was appointed Deputy National Chair of Fellowship of the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust.
In June 2000, Her Honour was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia for her service to the community, particularly through the Northern Territory Winston Churchill Memorial Fellowship Committee to tertiary education and to the law.
In January 2014, she was appointed a Companion of the Order of Australia for her eminent service to the people of the Northern Territory, particularly to the judiciary and social justice system, to the advancement of women in the legal profession, to youth and to the promotion and the development of Territory education.
Her Honour has a strong commitment to community service including as a long-term member of the Rotary Club of Darwin Sunrise Branch where she has helped to raise funds for local and international humanitarian projects and participated in a range of hands-on activities to benefit the welfare and development of her fellow Territorians.
During her three-year term as Administrator, Her Honour Sally Thompson has hosted 345 occasions at Government House for community groups, patronages and investiture ceremonies for Australian honours and awards. She has attended 859 events throughout the Northern Territory – put that in context: 859 events throughout the Northern Territory in three years – received 314 courtesy calls from the Diplomatic Corps, senior international and Australian military personnel, local and national community group representatives and Northern Territory citizens.
She has hosted several school tours for students of all levels at Government House, many of them remote schools visiting from Northern Territory areas to Darwin. She has presided over 51 meetings of the Executive Council, delivered 299 official speeches, and welcomed 22 177 guests to Government House. She has been busy.
Two weeks after being sworn in, the first international guest Her Honour welcomed to the Northern Territory on behalf of all Territorians was none other than the President of the United States, Mr Barack Obama. Following the announcement by the President and then Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, of the US Marine rotations in Darwin, Her Honour has taken a keen interest in the status of the rotations and their impact on the broader community. Her Honour visited the US Embassy in Canberra in 2002 to represent Territorians at the celebrations for their Independence Day.
Her Honour was invested as a Dame in the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem and Deputy Prior of St John Ambulance of the Northern Territory by Her Excellency Ms Quentin Bryce, Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia on 18 February 2012.
Her Honour was invested as Chief Scout of the Northern Territory on 22 February 2012 and its Honorary Commodore to No 13 City of Darwin Squadron Royal Australia Air Force.
She has conducted 30 official travel itineraries intra-Territory and interstate including visits to remote communities, always aiming to visit the schools and health clinics and engage with community members and learn about their lives. Her Honour has spent time on cattle stations, focusing on independently family-owned stations and hearing how they manage their respective businesses in an ever-changing environment. She has visited mining centres throughout the Northern Territory including places such as Borroloola, McArthur River, Nhulunbuy and Jabiru. She has seen schools, hospitals, clinics, police stations, cultural centres and cultural festivals and celebrations throughout many regional remote areas of the Territory.
Her Honour was the first Administrator of the Northern Territory to deliver the Anzac Day dawn services address in Tennant Creek in April this year, delivering a speech focused on none other than Albert Borella VC.
Her Honour officially welcomed their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge to the Northern Territory in April 2014 at Uluru.
She represented Territorians in Melbourne at the National Memorial Services for victims of MH17 and the state funeral for the Governor of Tasmania in July of this year.
Her Honour holds more than 70 patronages and honorary positions and has been involved with these organisations as often as the official program allowed, advocating their goals, achievements and aspirations.
Her Honour Sally Thomas AC is a representative Colonel to the Northwest Mobile Force and recently hosted the closing ceremony for Exercise Kowari, the first trilateral exercise between Australia, Chinese and the United States military which was held on Territory soil.
When asked recently about her role as Administrator, Her Honour said she had been thrilled to meet so many passionate and committed people contributing to the community through their work and volunteering capacity. She said the opportunity to visit so many schools to see what wonderful young people we have in the Northern Territory has been a constant delight. She also said she has been very privileged to hold the position of Administrator of the Northern Territory and has loved every moment of it.
Mr Duncan McNeill should not go unmentioned. Mr McNeill has ably supported Her Honour in her role as Administrator over the last three years and took patronages of his own during the term. I thank Mr McNeill for his support of the Northern Territory. I saw Mr McNeill at the Administrator’s residence earlier today lumbering around in his garden gear packing the boxes to leave the Administrator’s residence.
Madam Speaker, the Northern Territory has been honoured to have Sally Thomas as its 20th Administrator and, most notably, the first woman to be appointed as Administrator. On behalf of the Assembly and Territorians, I wish Her Honour Sally Thomas all the best in her future endeavours and thank her for her immense contribution and unwavering service to the people of the Northern Territory.
As everything starts to settle in for Mr John Hardy, I suggest he soak it all in and look forward to the opportunity of representing the Northern Territory as Administrator over the next two years. Your time between 30 October 2014 and 10 November 2014, when you will be formally sworn in by Governor-General Sir Peter Cosgrove, will be an up and down one where you are looking forward to the excitement of taking on the role in a formal capacity.
I, government and the parliament welcomes you to the role.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the opposition warmly welcomes the announcement of John Hardy as Administrator to be sworn in on 10 November by the Governor-General, Sir Peter Cosgrove. John is an exceptional Territorian. He is well-known for having established Hardy Aviation in 1991, which has been a vital provider of air links to our regional and remote towns across the Northern Territory.
Marie Hardy will be a fantastic partner. The roles and patronages as the Administrator and spouse at Government House are a partnership. Marie is a woman of great capacity and generosity of spirit. I am sure she will bring a very special touch to Government House.
John Hardy is someone I have had immense pleasure in knowing pretty well most of my life. I have aways found him to be one of our quieter heroes in the community. John has done a lot of philanthropic work in the Northern Territory. He has not just succeeded in business; he is one of those rare gentlemen committed to contributing to his community. Whilst there was recognition of his work through Darwin Symphony Orchestra and Rotary, I know John Hardy has been a regular ‘go to’ person when people are looking for philanthropic support across the arts in particular, but many sectors of our society.
He is a man who has a rich embracing of Territory aviation history, and his own plane collection is quite significant.
He has always been generous in ensuring he uses his capacity to promote the Northern Territory. Not only will he make an exceptional Administrator, he will continue to be a fine ambassador for the Northern Territory across the spectrum of tourism as well as aviation.
John has shown his passion for ensuring we are a whole-of-Territory in his approach to our community. His recognition of the vital importance of air links to our regional and remote centres has been exceptional. Even when some of the air link legs are not necessarily the most viable to operate, John Hardy has stuck with them. He has backed the people of the Territory in our most far-flung corners.
I am delighted to say, on behalf of the Northern Territory opposition, that we very much look forward to the swearing in of John Hardy as our next Administrator – a very fine choice indeed.
The Chief Minister’s speech recognised many of the achievements of Her Honour Sally Thomas AC. It was a thrill to be part of a Labor government that appointed our first female Administrator. Sally Thomas, as we have heard, hit many firsts in her distinguished career as a legal officer, the first female magistrate of the Northern Territory, the first female Chief Magistrate of the Northern Territory, the first female Supreme Court Judge, and the peak, the first female Administrator.
She took on the opportunity of being the Administrator with the generosity of spirit she has because she was already in that incredibly vital role of Chancellor of Charles Darwin University. Not known to everyone is the fact that Sally has managed important and busy jobs as Administrator and Chancellor of our university, and managed them both with distinction. Listening to exactly how many visitors she has had, and how many trips she has taken across the Territory in her engagement did not take us by surprise because we know this is a woman of great vigour, passion and love for the Territory, and very much the people of the Territory.
Chief Minister, I am glad you acknowledged the work of Duncan McNeill. He has been a great source of strength and a wonderful partner to the Administrator. The husband from New Zealand – the land of the long white cloud – adopted everything Territorian, and is very Territorian in his nature. He is a very friendly, generous man who was always very accommodating and made people feel at ease in both the Administrator’s company and his own.
We wish Her Honour Sally Thomas and Duncan all the very best. This is another chapter, turning into the next part of their exciting journey together. I am so pleased for the Charles Darwin University as they get her back full-time, so to speak, although as we have heard from the Chief Minister, Sally supports a whole range of organisations. She has incredible capacity and has done so much work for Territorians.
Thank you, Chief Minister, for making the announcement of John Hardy as our next Administrator. It puts a stop to all the speculation that had been floating around our Territory for some six months. It is good to have that announced. We all look forward to the opportunity of giving Her Honour Sally Thomas the normal and appropriate send-offs, as well as the opportunity to very much welcome and embrace the announcement of John Hardy OAM as our next Administrator.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): I also congratulate Mr John Hardy on being our next Administrator. I am not sure whether it was a budget consideration of the government, but Mr Hardy – who is someone I have known for a long time – can fly himself around now, all over the Territory. I have known him through the airline industry. He has been one of the leaders in the aviation industry in the Northern Territory. He is a great pick, as the Leader of the Opposition said.
He has also been involved in Rotary. I have been to the odd Rotary meeting John Hardy attended. From my knowledge of those meetings it is obvious there will only be the best wine in the Administrator’s house because John is also a connoisseur of a good red wine, from memory. He is a great character. If you want a down-to-earth Territorian you could not have gone past John Hardy.
I thank the government; it is a great selection. There are many other people who probably would have also been suitable but John is the right person.
I also thank Sally Thomas for all her hard work as the Administrator. People in the rural area came to love Sally very much. She has been out to the rural area a number of times. I once said to her ‘If we keep meeting up like this word will get around’, because she was at the Taminmin Library a number of times talking about her role as the Administrator and opening various events.
When Sally Thomas first started, she found it a bit strange. You could feel it was something she was not accustomed to. But as the years rolled on in her job she became a great Administrator. She had a wonderful way with people, whether they were from the rich end of town or out bush in a community. People in the rural area who met Sally Thomas appreciated and respected her as a wonderful Administrator and woman.
Madam Speaker, on a personal note, I thank her for all the work she has done across the Territory. I wish her well in whatever she does in the future. I am sure I will catch up with her around town somewhere.
Motion agreed to.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Health): Madam Speaker, I continue my comments on the motion put forward to the House by the Chief Minister earlier today. The Territory Insurance Office is facing significant future challenges in the rapidly-changing world of insurance. If the right criteria are met, now may be the appropriate time to realise our value in the TIO and reinvest in building the Territory for future generations.
Prior to the break I was reflecting on the fact we are the only jurisdiction in Australia in which the government insurance office remains with government. TIO remains the last government-owned insurer and bank in Australia, with all other states having privatised theirs about 20 years ago. The reason for that is that all other states bar the Territory saw the writing on the wall. They saw that the market had changed and moved from a national market to an international one. The globalisation of capital changed the whole environment of banking and insurance across Australia.
The reason TIO remained government-owned in the Territory was partly due to the fact it has been a great supporter of our community. It was seen as a game changer when it started in 1979. It was established to ensure Territorians had access to compulsory workers’ compensation insurance and motor accident compensation cover. We have held on to it for many different reasons. The debate about selling TIO has been going on for pretty much the last 15 years I remember, perhaps even longer.
When the Opposition Leader talked about how you cannot unscramble an egg, that epitomises how her government operated for 11 years. She did not scramble a single egg that was put to her. In fact, they just sat on their eggs, and there was no scrambling whatsoever ...
Mr Styles: There were no hatchings either.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Nothing was hatched, scrambled or poached. It was all left because they lacked stick and courage to make these very difficult decisions.
It is a heck of a lot easier to leave TIO where it is, in government hands. Politically, this will be tough for our government, but we do not baulk at tough decisions. We are not here for the longevity and glory of being in government. Each of us on this side is here to make a difference and to make decisions that are right, prudent and responsible for the economic future of the Northern Territory. That is not to say we do not care about the emotional side of certain aspects of our community – for example, TIO.
However, the only real argument I heard from the Leader of the Opposition when she was talking about why we should not sell was about nostalgia, sentimentality and the emotional connection to TIO. I buy that. I understand why people feel this way. I used to be emotionally connected to paper notes when I was a child. When they became plastic, everyone said, ‘Gee whiz, I do not like these plastic notes’, but life went on. There are a million other examples of how we all have had to change the way we do things because that is the way life is; nothing stays the same. It is sad. I am the most sentimental person on the planet; I keep everything I can. I have kept every single painting my children ever painted in boxes that, inevitably, will be thrown out at some stage. I like to hold onto the past.
However, how you manage a government has to be about what is prudent, pragmatic and in the best interest of the Territory.
The Leader of the Opposition talked about the comments made by the Chamber of Commerce in the media today. She said it was unsure of the impact and had concerns. This is what this debate is all about it: it is an opportunity for those concerns to be aired and for people to become a little clearer on why we would be putting this forward. We are not meanies or bad people who are trying to make life difficult for Territorians. In fact, quite the opposite; we are trying to make a decision which is responsible. We feel the sale of the Territory Insurance Office could be the most responsible decision to make.
I note the Leader of the Opposition also talked about the importance of the Motor Accidents Compensation Scheme. I will talk a little about that this afternoon. If TIO should be sold, the Territory’s Motor Accidents Compensation Scheme would continue to be owned by the government. This is a part of the overall package we would maintain. Having said that, we would keep ownership of the Motor Accidents Compensation Scheme, but look at the new provider and insurer paying for the right to manage the Motor Accidents Compensation Scheme.
This system exists across Australia. There is no other jurisdiction in Australia in which the equivalent to MAC continues to be owned and managed by the government. There is a precedent. Once again, we are the last jurisdiction to continue to manage this.
If we sold TIO, this would be an aspect that we would keep and, essentially, outsource. There would be interest in it and what it involves. Obviously, TIO has developed a team of experts who work in this motor accidents compensation area; a group of people who are proficient and experienced in assessing claims and working out the level of need and insurance required for people who have been involved in motor vehicle accidents. In the case of TIO being sold and a provider taking over the management of MAC, those people would invariably be transferred over to the new provider. They would be employed by the new provider with all the expertise and experience to continue that very important operation.
It is important to note that in recent times – in fact on 1 July this year – the Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act was amended so the benefits applying for people who have had motor vehicle accidents are aligned with the National Injury Insurance Scheme (NIIS) standards for severe injury. This was a national scheme that has been bought it, in line with the National Disability Insurance Scheme. It pertains to people who experience catastrophic injuries and is a national scheme which provides a uniform or standardised approach to looking at the standard of care for people who have experienced a catastrophic injury and at providing a fair and reasonable level of care for these people.
MAC and the National Injury Insurance Scheme (NIIS) are aligned and in place and would continue. As the government would remain the owner of MAC and outsource the management of MAC, we would ensure that continues. That is something we have signed on to at a national level. The government would continue to have a distant approach in overseeing how MAC is managed by the new provider.
The government will be replaced by a statutory commission called the Motor Accidents Compensation Commission, a stand-alone statutory commission set up by the government to oversee the new operator’s management of the MAC Scheme. That should provide the community, the sceptics and the critics with some reassurance that government would, at arms-length, ensure through this statutory commission that the Motor Accidents Compensation Scheme is managed properly.
That mechanism exists across government where you have a statutory body that oversees the functioning of different schemes and bodies. It works in other jurisdictions. This model is used, for example, in South Australia. They have a statutory commission that manages an outsourced contract when it comes to their accident compensation scheme.
There is a precedent. There should be some confidence this would work. This is an aspect of the sale of TIO which some people, particularly people who have had an interaction with TIO through the MAC system, need to be reassured about. It would be business as usual. If a new provider came in, the statutory commission is set up and business would continue as usual with pretty much the same staff. Some people will choose to move on for whatever reason, but essentially the same staff from TIO would be employed by the new provider to provide that service, overseen by the MAC Commission statutory body. MAC would still continue to be owned by the Northern Territory government even though all other aspects of TIO would be sold if we progress the idea of selling TIO.
Much consultation and dialogue is required from this point to when we make the decision explaining, reassuring and educating people why we would make this bold and dramatic decision. We are privy to information from TIO. We have been briefed by Richard Harding, the CE of the Territory Insurance Office. He supports the sale of TIO, and the TIO Board has been and continues to be supportive of the sale of TIO. It is not to simply, brashly, or crudely sell off the assets of government, it is about being prudent.
To recap on some of the points the Chief Minister raised in his speech, we are by far one of the smallest insurers in Australia and sit well down the list. I had some statistics somewhere in front of me. That is the trouble with not writing out a speech word for word; you tend to sometimes lose the page you are referring to
However, the Territory Insurance Office competes with international insurers which are hundreds of times bigger than the TIO. The size of the banking section of TIO is 1/700th the size of the National Australia Bank. We are minute. We are one-fifth the size of the ACCU and one-third the size of the Qantas Staff Credit Union. We are tiny. TIO is ranked 23rd with less than 1% share of the total Australian market and less than 1% share of the personal lines market. In economies of scale, TIO really struggles.
Having said that, at the moment it is a great business to put on the market. As the Chief Minister has explained to us in some detail, if there was to be a catastrophic incident, if there was to be – God forbid – another cyclone like Tracy or Katherine floods on the scale of 1998, we would all suffer the effects. It would be the taxpayers of the Northern Territory who would, ultimately, carry the burden because TIO is not insured to that extent; it does not have that same backing. Do not forget that the government self-insures, so if we were wiped out by a cyclone we would have to back TIO as we are the owner. We would then also have to come up with money to pay for our own repairs, replacement, and maintenance of buildings affected by the disaster.
Madam Speaker, in closing we have commenced this dialogue. It is important to consider the risk of TIO into the future, which has been well defined by the Chief Minister. It is risky for each and every one of us to continue to own the Territory Insurance Office. TIO needs a greater diversification to survive, and by being government-owned it is severely restricted. I hark back to the comment made by the Opposition Leader, ‘You cannot unscramble an egg’. Well, sometimes scrambled eggs are good value and just want the doctor ordered.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for bringing on this debate. It is good to hear that chickens get a mention when it comes to the TIO. They probably used to insure our chicken companies when we had some in the Northern Territory.
I go back through a bit of history, thanks to the Parliamentary Library. The Report on the Establishment of an NT Government Insurance Office is from the days before there were computers because the front page has been handwritten. It was put together by a gentleman called Mr Caffin in about 1976. That was the beginning of our Territory Insurance Office and it dealt with a lot of the issues we will speak about today such as cyclone damage. That was one of the reasons it was set up.
Many people say regardless of what happened in the past, life has moved on, but it is worth reading a couple of things the CLP said when we had this campaign. You might remember it. I kept this one. The reason I kept …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, please put that down. No props.
Mr WOOD: How can I explain what I am talking about, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: Describe it.
Mr WOOD: I have this blue and white sign the same colour as the Western Bulldogs. It has a map of the Northern Territory on it and is made of polystyrene. I once moved in to have some electronic boards up there so we could do this in a way that makes sense. I will not call this a prop because I could hold up the same sheet of paper from here and say it is an example of it. That was the beginning of a major campaign to save TIO from being sold.
I have a media release from Jodeen Carney, a previous Leader of the Opposition, from January 2006 which said:
Further, Ms Carney said:
That is what the CLP said then. I quote from Mr Terry Mills:
A lot of what is being said now was said in 2006. In 2006, TIO was not in as good a state as it is today. Unfortunately – I do not know whether it was deliberate or otherwise – we still have not received last year’s annual report. It is very difficult to have a mature debate without some facts and figures in front of you. I can use the 2012-13 report. There is some very good information in that, but there is not the information you would like to have to debate this today.
The Opposition Leader has pretty well summed up the importance of TIO from a community perspective. I understand where the Chief Minister is coming from and the arguments. I have been to a briefing with Richard Harding. However, to some extent, I heard these arguments in 2006 from Treasury and whoever was running TIO then.
You get the feeling there are some good economic arguments. However, there are sometimes companies which are more than just a formulaic body that does nothing else but collect money and pay it out. TIO is one of those companies. As I said yesterday during debate, not everybody loves insurance companies. Tell me of someone who really loves an insurance company. But if you can get 15 000 people to say they do not want their insurance company sold, you have to ask if there must be something special about that company.
I do not know whether many people in this parliament were around when that program occurred, and understand the passion of many people in relation to this issue. Of course, time has moved on and many people have come to the Territory since then. They may not have the same conviction about the TIO. They might use the insurance companies they used down south.
The Chief Minister has made many statements today about the future of TIO. He also mentioned the board. I said last night it is easy to look at what the board has said in their media release of 29 October. Bruce Carter, the chair of the board, said:
He also said:
They are similar to the issues that were being discussed in 2006. The government decided not to sell it, and TIO has gone on and increased in profitability since then.
I again read what the chair of the board said:
My concern is we do not have any real proof of many of the things the Chief Minister said. In other words, we have not had the ability to dig down and question in parliament – because it is very difficult to question in this type of debate – some of the things the Chief Minister has said. For instance, I have not heard any discussion about the staff except that the Chief Minister said the jobs will be retained. Who is sticking up for the staff? Who is asking the staff what they think?
When this issue was last raised in 2006, there were people on the staff who were able – uncomfortably, because they knew they could get into trouble – to come and see Terry Mills and me and say, ‘We believe we are going to lose our jobs’. Is there some proof the people in TIO House are not going to lose their jobs? They might not lose it for the first year or the second year, but a big company may say, ‘We do not need all these people because we are such a global company, we can do all the work from Sydney and just keep an office in Darwin’. Where is the guarantee of long-term employment? We do not know the companies the Chief Minister is talking to. He is, obviously, talking to companies because he said that last night. What is the deal? Is the deal to allow 250 people to keep their jobs for 10 years, or is it just for one year, then they take voluntary redundancy and the workforce disappears? I do not know.
What will the story be in relation to flood, cyclone and storm surge cover? Will the people of Katherine be paying more or less if we sell off TIO? That is the basic question people in Katherine want to know the answer to. If we sell off TIO, what guarantee is there that insurance costs will not go through the roof because we will become part of a bigger company which will not have the same concerns as TIO had for people in Katherine?
TIO is talking about having spot pricing for different parts of the Northern Territory. It is saying Katherine would probably pay more than Tennant Creek, and Alice Springs would not pay as much as Darwin. That is something we need to look at and debate why it is so, because that is not the way it is at the present time.
Will we lose a lot of the sponsorship which is specific to the Territory? Will a bigger company look at bigger brands and smaller groups will disappear? Will it just take on the AFL or the NRL and that will do? Will it take on some of the small community groups that also rely on sponsorship from TIO?
The Chief Minister said the idea of asset recycling is not the priority. I cannot really accept that. If I wanted to test it I could ask the Chief Minister if he has looked at an alternative to broaden the risk of TIO without selling it. Have you looked at going into partnership with one of the companies the Minister for Health mentioned? We are number 23 on a list of insurance companies? I do not know what we are 23 out of? Is it possible to create a partnership with another small insurance company without getting rid of TIO as it is? In other words, they share the burden but do not lose their identity. If that was a feasible option – and I believe it has some merit – the government would not accept it because this is just as much about whether TIO is feasible into the future, as to whether the Territory government will get the asset recycling money.
That is what cuts off discussion about other options because it looks like we are dealing with TIO purely on the basis of whether we can reduce its risk into the future. The issue of asset recycling is just as much part of this as whether we should sell TIO because it has some risk. I do not think that is the debate we should have.
Once we have sold this asset it is gone. The Chief Minister has given us some ideas where this asset money could go. Why would you pick a swimming pool? We all know swimming pools cost a lot of money. If you are looking at reinvesting, you reinvest into something that makes money. If you reinvest it into a debt – well, leave TIO alone. That does not make any sense at all.
That issue has to be one of the main reasons the government wants to do this. When you go on the website it does not ask if you want to sell TIO or not. It asks what we should use the money we would get from the asset recycling fund for. That makes it biased and the major reason the government wants to get rid of TIO.
I have heard some good arguments. The Chief Minister has put some reasonable arguments. I argue against Richard Harding, and he is a knowledgeable fellow. There were knowledgeable fellows in 2006 with opinions and TIO was not sold and continued to thrive.
It is interesting to read the 2012-13 annual report. Anyone involved in this debate needs to read it. The chair said, on page 6 of that report:
We are not dealing with a company in financial trouble. How can we make sure it is not at risk into the future? It is by being prudent in the way it operates. Mr Carter said:
That sums up where we are at present.
The issue that really concerns me is that this TIO is our TIO; it is advertised as our TIO. It says, ‘We are for Territorians’. For me, the government has not done the work it should have done. How many public meetings has the government held to put forward its point of view about the sale of TIO? Not one. The debate we are having will be a closed debate. The media might pick a bit of it up, or people may be keen to watch us on television – that may be a small group – but the general population is working, walking, driving; they are not listening to this debate. It does not matter whether we have good ideas or bad ideas; they are not going out to the people who need to listen to those debates.
If the government was fair dinkum in its desire to sell TIO, it would be talking to the people directly, not via media release or a 10-second grab of television. It would do so by having meetings in the community where it and other people can express their point of view about the sale of TIO, and the government can listen to the people.
If 15 000 of those people signed the biggest petition ever in the Northern Territory, you would think that would send a signal that people are concerned. If the government is to convince them that it ought to move in a direction which is different than in 2006, then it should consult with them. You would think it would do that. Unfortunately, the government has failed; it has not spoken to the people.
Lastly, this needs far more investigation. We have a Public Accounts Committee which has the role of doing exactly what we are talking about:
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request the member be granted an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you. Madam Speaker, I therefore move that all the words after ‘acknowledges’ be omitted and the following words be inserted:
that TIO belongs to the people of the Northern Territory and before any decision is made on its future, the Assembly resolves to have all matters relating to a possible future sale of TIO scrutinised by the Public Accounts Committee and reported back to the parliament no later than 1 June 2015.
Mr Styles: Could we have a copy of that please, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: Please circulate a copy first, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: In general terms, it is not too difficult. I am asking that we take this to the PAC for it to investigate. I will argue that this would be a good thing for the PAC to look at.
The PAC has been around for a long time, investigating many things that have occurred in the Northern Territory. We have investigated the various computer programs that wasted a lot of government money because they did not work. We did not have any problem looking at that. Its role is to look at how government money is spent, how it will be spent, and the effects of programs government operates.
The government owns TIO. The government has claimed a number of things, such as that selling TIO will reduce the risk to Territorians. Let us look at it; it might be perfectly correct. We could bring in some experts and ask them. When Syd Stirling was Treasurer they held a scoping inquiry, which went for three months.
I am asking for the PAC to hold an inquiry into many of the matters brought forward by the government in this motion today. The PAC also has the ability to go into the community. The community is not just Darwin and the northern suburbs; it is Gove, where there are cyclones, Katherine, which has floods, Nauiyu, which has floods, and the rural area, where there are bushfires and cyclones. Tennant Creek receives the odd shake. I am not sure they have earthquake insurance, but occasionally a few bottles have fallen off the shelf of the Tennant Creek Hotel. They probably claim for them.
We have a very big Northern Territory where many people are customers of TIO. The PAC could ask people what they think. The government could put forward an argument for the sale of TIO and people could at least put their points of view to the PAC, which could then be passed on to government.
The advantage of the PAC is it is a bipartisan group; it is not like arguing against one another in the Chamber. It would give us all a chance to look at this debate. I have said before that I am not the golden oracle on economics, but as a person who takes an interest in these matters I reflect more of the ordinary folk who do not have that same knowledge of insurance companies.
It is not simple. I presume there are people with PhDs in insurance. I am putting this forward as a positive approach, which would be a far better way for the government to show it is supportive of the community having a say and is willing to bring both sides of parliament into the debate so we can assess the arguments it has put to see whether they stand up to scrutiny.
We could call in experts in the insurance and banking industries and look at the pros and cons of the amalgamation of insurance companies, the history of where this has happened before and learn about advantages and disadvantages. Many government insurance companies were amalgamated or sold to other companies. What were the pluses and minuses? Did the customers of those insurance companies benefit from those changes or was it about the government making some dollars to build a new railway line, port, swimming pool or equestrian centre? What were the benefits, overall, in getting rid of those government assets?
I repeat that once we have sold the asset we will never get it back. The Chief Minister talked about the days of Labor selling the Commonwealth Bank. There are a few people around today who wish the Commonwealth Bank had not been sold. A few Labor people would have been shocked at a Labor government selling the Commonwealth Bank. At least there was a government competitor, and now you have four big banks. Look at the profits they make; they are enormous. Perhaps it would have been beneficial to keep one bank with the government and putting those profits back into the community.
Medicare Private has just been privatised and listed on the stock exchange. It will raise about $4.5bn. Is it possible our TIO could become a small publicly-owned company with shareholders? We have one shareholder, which is the minister. Is there a possibility we could all buy shares in our insurance company? What is wrong with investing in our insurance company?
What is lacking in this is we have no chance of having a good debate on any alternatives – we either sell it or not. Can we have an amalgamation? There is no debate. Can we have a public company in which the community can buy shares? We cannot have that debate. It is not on the government’s agenda and would not suit it because it could not get the asset recycling fund. That is what tosses this debate and skews it. That is why we need the PAC to look at those alternatives. Those alternatives might be silly or impractical, but where do we get a chance to test them? We will not get a chance to test them in this one-sided debate: I speak, someone else speaks, we have a vote and that is the end of the debate. The PAC has the opportunity to talk these things through in a much more thorough way so it can tell the people it has investigated all these things.
It would be great to go to Katherine and pass on to people the knowledge regarding their concerns. If their concerns could be allayed – I do not know – maybe they would be happy. If people in the surge zone at Nightcliff hear that the insurance will be available for them – it was mentioned today that is one area of the Northern Territory where people find it hard to get insurance. Obviously it is not just Darwin people living in the surge zone. I lived on Bathurst Island. Most of Nguiu – I keep forgetting its new name – is in the surge zone. There are many coastal communities which would also be affected. Many of our Aboriginal communities are right on the coast. Who will insure those places?
They are some of the matters the PAC could be asked to thoroughly look at. We must not forget in this debate that there are many small communities. I spoke about Tennant Creek, Alice Springs, Katherine and Gove, but as I said, many Aboriginal communities are in cyclone areas. We need to know how they would fit into the scheme. Would they be picked up by some big insurance company, or would they be told, ‘If you want insurance from us, here is the cost, too bad, you like it or lump it’? They are some of the issues the PAC could look at. It would be carrying out the very role for which the government set it up.
Madam Speaker, I will not go on forever. My feeling is if the government has a good argument it wants to put to the people, it would be better off to do it through the PAC. It has not done it through public meetings. If it is not willing to go down that path, then why not let the PAC, as a bipartisan group, study what the consequences of selling the TIO would be, and hear what the people have to say? From a governance point of view – TIO is a government body – people expect us to make a well-reasoned and considered decision. Going through the PAC would enable that to happen.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Barkly, are you speaking to the amendment plus the motion?
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Yes, Madam Speaker. I join the debate again because it has been recurring throughout these October sittings. It seems that fair, just, legitimate and transparent alternatives being put by the opposition and the Independent member for Nelson have started to lead this debate. After placing on the public record a number of times during the October sittings my reasons and those that have come from constituents and people I have spoken to, I will respond now with common sense and good manners in a simple approach to the Chief Minister.
This debate seems to be very much led by the opposition and the member for Nelson. The government seems to be in a reactive state. As we have seen over the fortnight with challenging questions, debate and accountability, the Chief Minister continues to move the rhetoric in a reactive sense. Within the realms of common sense that makes me nervous. The Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, the lead minister, the statesman of the great Northern Territory, is continually changing the rhetoric to react to the challenge. To me, that is not confidence building, Chief Minister.
I challenge your statement that the CLP has a mandate for sale. I do not believe that or accept it. Many constituents do not believe or accept that. If that was the case, Chief Minister, using common sense and good manners, that would have been part of your platform at the 2012 election. It is such a huge matter and monumental change in public assets of the Northern Territory, it surely would have been on your policy list and platform, a dot point on those signed contracts for remote communities and a big point for going forward. But it was not. Where do you get a mandate for sale? Where does this rhetoric come from? My assessment is that it is desperation.
In a shift in rhetoric from the Chief Minister, as late as today he said the Chamber of Commerce backed this plan for sale. The CEO of the Chamber of Commerce said today the business sector across the Northern Territory did not support the sale of TIO, and that businesses in the Territory are concerned about the possibility of increased premiums.
Chief Minister, you have taken a step too far in your hasty sale plans for TIO without proper consultation with the Northern Territory community. You have taken it upon yourself to jam this through as an agenda that looks like personal ambition and interest. It could even be interpreted as an emergency plan to create the war chest so you can pork barrel your way into the 2016 election. Territorians are asking that question. Your continued reactive rhetoric does not support a balanced debate or any empirical evidence for this sale.
The opposition and the Independent member for Nelson have put clear alternatives. What is the haste? Why the rush in such a major shift?
We heard in this debate a definite lean to the sale of public assets. It will not be just TIO. We already heard the reactive shift in rhetoric around the sale of Power and Water assets and the Port of Darwin with statements that the port will not be sold; it will be a long-term lease for 99 years.
With common sense and good manners, it is definitely the opposition and the Independent member leading this debate. Nerves around the Territory are heightened with the government in this reactive role, changing the story and the rhetoric to respond to these fair, just, open and transparent challenges.
The Chief Minister also moved onto shaky ground when he talked about TIO and its risk. As I said in previous debates, he sounds like he is trying to sell a used car. On one hand he is telling Territorians about the great TIO, on the other hand he is saying we better offload it because it has this amazing risk attached to it. I do not get that sales pitch, Chief Minister. Remember, we have heard some empirical evidence from previous annual statements where the TIO stood proud and talked about a $60m profit.
TIO also represents Territorians and a very unique insurance product for Territorians. I must mention it is not all just about Darwin, it is also about Borroloola. I remember the devastating effects of Cyclone Cathy, the impact on the gulf savannah area and the flooding on Rockhampton Down Station. Those are impacts of very severe cyclones that intensify within the shallow, warm Gulf of Carpentaria and have a broader impact on the centre of the Territory, particularly the Barkly region.
Territorians living in these areas also share in the strength, unity and confidence of TIO – the Territory company that will respond to Territory conditions. In Borroloola, there is heightened infrastructure due to the previous Labor government. We heard stories in this place of desperate ministers and that Labor never did anything. We have $5.5m worth of new education infrastructure in the new school at Borroloola. It is supported by an incredible sports oval that was additional to the $5.5m. Then, in partnership with the McArthur River Mine Community Benefit Trust, we got a swimming pool. The Chief Minister talked about a swimming pool; Borroloola has a swimming pool. That is one example of improved, sophisticated infrastructure and of a growing area, a growth town, matched by businesses, housing and residents, all living under that unique Territory cover.
It is important we get this right. The Chief Minister does not need to rush this through. Clear alternatives have been presented and I would like him to seriously consider them. He continually reverts to a defensive position of, ‘Let us sell it so we can build new infrastructure’. The member for Blain itemised what he considered as higher productive infrastructure, including a swimming pool. In this semantic battle in the Legislative Assembly he might be embarrassed about that comment and a little upset I am using it in debate. I continually remind him, ‘Welcome to the Legislative Assembly, we all have to start somewhere’. I have had my fair share of abuse and ridicule, but I carry on.
Let us discuss the swimming pool because the Chief Minister used that to defend the member for Blain and shifted the argument to an Olympic-size pool. He also created this new rhetoric around an Olympic-size swimming pool that could support major events. That is what we saw over a couple days of reactive debate. ‘That was a bit embarrassing. We will shift that; we will recreate that concept. Member for Barkly, this is not just about a swimming pool, this is about an Olympic-size swimming pool. This is about an aquatic centre that will support a national level of competition.’
I ask the Chief Minister what consultation has he done with the local government sector about the handover of government infrastructure for management, maintenance and repairs? What level of consultation has there been with the local government sector, which I presume will accept this infrastructure, in recurrent funding for its operational parameters? That is a fair question and I would like the Chief Minister to answer that in his response in this debate.
The Chief Minister then shifted the rhetoric to another level in the debate. ‘Here is the deal breaker; we could build a performing arts centre.’ He certainly sold the snake oil to the member for Barkly. I had this vision of a performing arts centre. Then I had a fantasy about the possibility of the Longtails and the Scorpions scoring a gig there and being on the big stage of this new performing arts centre in the city of Darwin, maybe in the city of Palmerston or Adelaide River. I am not sure; we do have not any details. Once again, has there been any consultation about the ongoing management and governance model of such a facility?
I had an immediate reality check when I became lost in those images of the Scorpions on stage at the new performing arts centre. What about the Darwin Entertainment Centre? Has there been any consultation with the Darwin Entertainment Centre? It is one of the jewels in the crown of this fair city. Under the stewardship of Mr Alan James the place is bigger and better than ever. The Darwin Entrainment Centre represents that incredible arena for the performing and visual arts. I have been to exhibitions in the Darwin Entertainment Centre; it sits in the middle of this fair city and is going from strength to strength. If those board members, the general manager and staff have been listening to this debate and the reactive output they suddenly heard that the Chief Minister will cash in on TIO and build a new performing arts centre, they will wonder where the Darwin Entertainment Centre will fit. These are questions that are continually emerging.
I revert back to the position of the opposition and the Independent member: stop the bus and let us receive a reality check, with the people of the Northern Territory who own this asset. The people of the Northern Territory deserve a say in this major policy shift within a government that has no mandate to do this as they have never put it to the test of the people.
The member for Nelson has just given another alternative for the government to consider: that this issue be examined, researched and assessed by the Public Accounts Committee. There are some alternatives: a referendum, an election or a Public Accounts Committee referral. They are fair and open, and I ask the Chief Minister to consider them.
The lastest thing to have concerned me in this shift of rhetoric, the reaction to the real challenges coming from the other side of the House, is the Chief Minister saying, in one of his rapid fire, hyperactive moments, that they have buyers lined up. They do not have one buyer, but a selection of buyers. They have already done the deal. I reflected on a very important point the Leader of the Opposition made. She asked when all this started. A March date has emerged. The Chief Minister told the House that TIO brought a submission to the CLP Cabinet.
The Leader of the Opposition reminded me of the fundamentals in Cabinet processes, in that a minister brings a Cabinet submission to the Cabinet process. The Chief Minister took leave to sit down and not go any further after that rapid-fire one-off reactive statement that now reflects that a deal has already been done. That raised great reservations with me as a representative of many people in the Northern Territory residing in the Barkly and beyond. Many people raise this issue with me when they realise I am a member of parliament; they choose to make their feelings known.
Chief Minister, there is some real concern. You do not have the leadership credentials in this debate to go any further forward. The opposition and the member for Nelson have offered clear alternatives, and they should be considered on behalf of all Territorians, particularly those members opposite. The people of Borroloola who have been through Cyclone Kathy, the people of Katherine who have been though those devastating floods, and as the Leader of the Opposition has noted, the people of Darwin who have been through Cyclone Tracy, are Territorians who can tell real stories. They are not only stories of survival, but of rebuilding and of an institution, the Territory Insurance Office, which played a critical role in making sure that happened. It was not so much after Cyclone Tracy, but Katherine is a very good example of the Territory Insurance Office role. From that event and those timely payments that reflected a Territory designed and delivered insurance product, TIO went from strength to strength and has solidified its financial base to deliver in that space should those events happen in the future.
We have a brand and a product, but we also have solidarity with the people. That is the intrinsic example the Chief Minister should consider: that the people have values and celebrate identity, and it is about the Territory. Sure enough, if you want to run down this road of asset sales that is a major shift in policy, then take it to an election, hold a referendum or refer this matter to the Public Accounts Committee. They are very clear alternatives.
Madam Speaker, I hope the Chief Minister takes this debate in good faith and does not call me a coward. I hope he responds to some of my questions and this debate continues. I hope the bus will be stopped and there will be some clarity. I hope this issue, which seems to be a chain reaction of public asset sales by the CLP in the midterm of a government being challenged, will not continue without the real accountability, transparency and openness that should be applied to such major changes in policy position.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I have not yet participated in a decision to sell TIO, because I have not yet been convinced, as no member on this side of the House has been convinced.
However, having made those observations, that does not prevent us from looking at the sale of TIO. The idea of selling TIO comes from a very simple idea. I wonder what the opinion of the members of this House would be if somebody walked up to the government and said, ‘I will give you an outrageous figure’ – let us say $5bn – ‘for TIO’? It would be recklessly irresponsible of government to say, ‘No we will not do it’ because of all of the reasons we have heard outlined today.
I am reminded of an old quote attributed to, variously, Groucho Marx and George Bernard Shaw, as well as Lord Beaverbrook – depending on how far you go back – which reflects on a conversation between, originally reported, Lord Beaverbrook and an American actress. The conversation went something like this:
The actress replied:
Lord Beaverbrook then said:
At which point the actress replied:
To which Lord Beaverbrook replied:
That is exactly what the conservation is about today. We can say we have all of these lofty ideals when it comes to the sale of TIO, but if the price was right, then the question would beg – which I have not heard from members opposite and the member for Nelson – what is the appropriate price?
Could you imagine if the price was very good, what you could do with that money? Mitigate flood risk in Katherine by virtue of building levees which would cost you about $20m is one of the things you could do. An ambulatory care centre at the hospital would provide better services, particularly for those people who are affected by accidents – the very same type of accidents the MAC Scheme covers. I am prepared, as a minister of this government, to look at a financial asset to see if we can turn it into any other form of real asset to the advantage of the people we serve, the people of the Northern Territory.
Let us consider the position of TIO if we are prepared to concede there must be somewhere on the money scale that all members of this House would be ultimately prepared to sell TIO for. If the price is right, it would be irresponsible of a government or a parliament not to do so. That is what we have to look at and what the Chief Minister is talking about. If the price was right imagine what we could do for the people of the Northern Territory. Today we are hearing criticism heaped upon the Chief Minister for mentioning the possibility.
We are hearing arguments structured on the negative effects on policyholders of TIO and people who are not policyholders but beneficiaries of its operation in the community. The argument run by the Leader of the Opposition is that TIO sponsors this and that, and it is a good corporate citizen. I argue that a number of other insurance companies are good corporate citizens around Australia and the world. In fact, a number of good companies which are good corporate citizens are not insurance companies, such as INPEX and ConocoPhillips, and they sponsor any number of smaller sporting organisations and cultural activities in the Northern Territory. In fact, Mr Kuroda, Chairman of INPEX, went so far as to say he would be extremely uncomfortable working in the Northern Territory unless he had the social licence to do so. Many companies consider social licence to be part of their structure.
However, that is what the members opposite argue. Let us talk about the people the member for Nelson and members opposite are talking about: those affected by TIO remaining in a position of what I consider substantial vulnerability. That comes down to a conversation about a single word identified and understood by the Leader of the Opposition: risk. She described TIO as a small insurer – and it is tiny. The Minister for Health mentioned TIO having less than 1% of the Australian marketplace.
A further issue needing to be considered by members of this House is that TIO, as an organisation, has its risk substantially embedded in a small marketplace when it comes to its number of policyholders, and it is also geographically highly vulnerable. If you consider its major area of policyholders, namely Darwin, it is extremely vulnerable when it comes to cyclones. Currently, policyholders in Alice Springs and other areas, I presume, pay their policy premiums as an offset to the way TIO needs to spread its risk internally.
The standard argument we heard from members opposite is that TIO reinsures, and I am sure it does. The standard behaviour of any insurance company is to spread its risk. However, those insurance companies do not spread their risk completely. I am unsure how much the reinsurance costs of TIO are, but as a small operator I can bet you London to a brick its reinsurance costs are substantial. All of this serves to put upward pressure on TIO premiums.
Let us think about what an insurance policy is. The Chief Minister alluded to it in his opening comments on this motion in relation to how Lloyds of London was established. Picture a number of people who want to share a risk. Every person has, let us say, a $200 exposure to a risk and 20 people then determine to place $10 each into a jar on an annual basis in case one of them gets hurt, then they can spread the risk amongst them. If one of them does get hurt, or their $200 worth of exposure is realised in a real calamity, they can reach into the jar and take out the $200. The next year everybody pays in again, noticing that the first person who was insured, effectively, through that system, managed to survive long enough to be a contributor again into that insurance bucket. That is not an unreasonable principle and that is basically how the insurance marketplace works.
Some insurance policyholders reflect a greater risk than others. We heard the example used by the Leader of the Opposition about a gentleman in Katherine who struggled to get flood insurance because the property he was seeking to insure was so heavily exposed that it is almost certain, at some point in the not-so-distant future, he will have to make a claim. What the Leader of the Opposition remained silent about is that claim will have to be made against somebody else’s premiums.
The Leader of the Opposition is starting to argue that a person who finds themselves in a circumstance where they are highly exposed to risk makes a claim against others who are less exposed to risk. In those circumstances, insurers say, ‘No, if you are going to be in a place where you have heightened risk then you will pay a premium that reflects the quality and level of the risk you carry’.
Let us talk about all the other people who are paying this extra premium – this tax for lack of a better word, except that it is a voluntary payment – into the same bucket of money, yet there is one person saying, ‘I will only put in my amount consummate with everybody else, but behave in a fashion which carries so much more risk’. According to the Leader of the Opposition, that is fair because you do not get to see those other premium payers, they just continue paying their premiums. As a general principle they do not make claims against the insurance policies they have, but they still pay the premium. There is a premium on that premium every time the risk profile becomes challenged because of particular vulnerabilities within that risk profile.
TIO is a small insurer with less than 1% of the market in a place where there are high levels of risk, namely Katherine and Darwin, where floods and cyclones occur. TIO is telling us it has a risk profile. The risk is spread even further, according to the members opposite, because that risk is spread to the taxpayer of the Northern Territory. If TIO has to pay out beyond the capacity of its reinsurance, whatever that is, then there is a government guarantee at the other end. That is really what this argument is about: the government guarantee; the promise at the other end that there will be a government which will bail it out if everything else turns to custard. That is what this conversation is really about.
In prayers in this House every morning, we finish the first part of the prayer before the Lord’s Prayer with the line ‘for the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory’. By exposing the people of the Northern Territory to a risk in a private company or business, am I really doing what that prayer demands of me and adhering to the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory, or am I alternately saying that we are a government that is in business and will underwrite that business with taxpayers’ dollars?
I have heard questions all this week about government assisting Melville and Bathurst Islands, the Tiwi Islands, with a loan to support business there, with members opposite screaming that it is corrupt to do so. In the next breath they simply say government must underwrite an insurance company to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, and it is our social duty to do so. That is not a consistent approach to government and to the exposure of the people of the Northern Territory.
I would like to remove – if the price is right – taxpayers’ exposure to insurance liability which could be spread extra-jurisdictional, rather than intra-jurisdictional as currently is the case.
One of the first speeches I ever heard in this place in 1997 was from former Administrator Neil Conn in his Address-in-Reply. I do not remember much about this speech except for one line, ‘Government in business is government in the wrong business’. That has resonated with me from that day to this in how I have watched government attempt to flirt with the business environment. To demonstrate how clunky that business environment is, the mere decision of a government to dispose of an asset – if government chooses to do so – is being done in such a fashion as to diminish the value of that asset in the sale process.
This is where I turn my mind to the proposed amendment by the member for Nelson, who said, ‘Let us flick this off to the PAC’ …
Mr Wood: In the true tradition of the Attorney-General when he was in opposition
Mr ELFERINK: I will ignore that.
Let us say we were in the marketplace and receiving expressions of interest. I imagine, with the conversation we have had now, there are a number of expressions of interest in the pipeline. I do not like government being in business because, according to the member for Nelson, it has to be the right way to sell this product, if we are going to sell it at all. He is not saying do not do it, he is saying do it under the right circumstances, if I understand his argument correctly.
He said, ‘We want to sell the car’. That is fine, but how are we going to sell the car? We can do it quickly and make sure we sell it, as people would purchase it on the basis of what it looks like now. Alternatively, we can create a committee so when we go into the marketplace and try to sell the car it will be saddled with the opinion of everybody in that committee process. We will have people making all sorts of assertions about how TIO should or should not work, what it is worth and is not worth, etcetera. We would certainly not do it quickly. What better way to create a run on the banking arm of TIO than to undermine the certainty of a potential purchaser through scaring the people who have their money in the TIO banking arm ...
Mr Wood interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: I hear the member for Nelson groan, but the fact is …
Mr Wood: You forget the people in the process.
Mr ELFERINK: I have not forgotten the people. The very people who are attached to the banking arm are the people I do not want to see singed because you are busy pushing this stuff through a committee and devaluing the property in the process …
Mr Wood: That is an opinion. You do not devalue it at all.
Mr ELFERINK: You are wrong.
Mr Wood: You are wrong.
Mr ELFERINK: You are wrong, and I will explain to you why. You will create an environment where people will start saying, ‘If they are going to sell this thing, I will pull my investments out of TIO. I will find insurance somewhere else, because I am hearing all of this noise about it. I will take my money out of the bank and put it into Westpac because I am hearing all this noise about it.’
All of a sudden, the banking arm and the insurance arm are worth a whole lot less …
Mr Wood: That is called the annual report.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, but it will not be worth that by the time you finish doing an autopsy on it. You have to be able to sell the product as it is, not as it will be by the time you finish embarrassing it. That is what the member for Nelson does not understand. ‘Farm it out to a committee’, he said. Farm it out to a committee, and watch people get nervous about it, start pulling their money out of the bank and finding insurance elsewhere. All of a sudden, something that may have been worth X is suddenly worth something substantially less than Y. ‘That is all right,’ says the member for Nelson, ‘We have taken the people with us and, in the process, devalued the product and exposed the risk of remaining policyholders even further’.
Government in business is government in the wrong business. The member for Nelson is trying to template a commercial decision into a legislative process. That is why government should not be occupying the space of being in business.
Mr Wood interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I have all comments directed through to the Speaker’s Chair please.
Mr ELFERINK: That is why I hear the member for Nelson railing – which he rarely does in this place – because he thinks the whole world can be run by a committee. The commercial world does not operate in that fashion – one of the good reasons for government not to be in business ...
Mr Wood: Give me a break! You just do not want to be scrutinised …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, can you stop the interjection please.
Mr Wood: You said to put the interjections through you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I said all …
Mr Wood: I was just putting them through you.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, you have the floor. Can everyone else please stop interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: The member for Nelson would seriously devalue the product through what he is arguing. It would be positively the most reckless thing we could do in how TIO is managed. TIO is a commercial entity that runs on a commercial basis. I also heard the member for Nelson say it is doing really well. Yes, at the moment it is doing really well …
Mr Wood: Better this year.
Mr ELFERINK: That is right. But guess what? I do not know if the member for Nelson has ever sat on a plane, but sometimes you fly through turbulence and sometimes you do not. If you sit on a plane long enough, it will find some turbulence again. When you take something into a marketplace and look to the value of that product in the marketplace – when are you going to do that? When the car has a dent in the front fender or when the car is looking clean and tidy? I know what I would rather be selling. I remain implacably …
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I seek an extension of time for the minister.
Motion agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: I remain implacably bound to the concept of what I described at the outset today: only if the price is right.
I have heard members opposite arguing that we should not go anywhere near the sale of this simply because it is TIO and it is a local product. They have not even asked what the price is. That is reckless and ill-informed. I am critical of the members of the Labor Party for taking that very strident position without considering what may be on offer and what that money can be used for.
I am even more critical of the member for Nelson for attempting to move this amendment by virtue of the fact that through the process he is describing, he is guaranteed to diminish its value even if we got to the marketplace. The way the member for Nelson would present this product into the marketplace is he would take a good-looking valuable vehicle, bash it up with a sledge hammer for a while, then wonder why he could not recover the price originally offered before he went into the committee stages. That is precisely what his process would accomplish.
It is for that reason I argue that government in business remains government in the wrong business. Governments should make decisions in relation to the legislative structures and the processes of running government. They are, invariably, not commercial institutions. Commercial institutions belong in the commercial world. Whilst government may encourage commercial conduct and may even underwrite it, from time to time, for the purposes of developing the general economy, simply sitting on an asset because that asset is theirs and there is an emotional bond to it, irrespective of the sale price that may be offered, is unwise. It is perfectly rational for a government to look at the value of a product. It is even more rational for a government not to diminish the value of that product by going through some committee process that no other sale of asset has to go through in any other part of the commercial world.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for bringing this discussion into the House. I reiterate that the decision has not been taken, but it has to be examined. Any rational government would do so. I reject any irrational decision to diminish the value of a product in the process of trying to see if anybody is interested in purchasing it.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Mr Deputy Speaker, I speak to this motion and the amendment before the House regarding the future of TIO.
TIO is a Territory-owned insurer, a Territory asset. It is coming through loud and clear across the Territory that Territorians do not want it sold; there are deep concerns. I welcome the fact that we are having more debate in the Chamber about it. However, I have serious questions about the level of the apparent mature debate and whether or not we are seeing any genuine consultation with Territorians regarding the future of TIO.
First, I address the amendment to the motion from the member for Nelson to refer any potential sale to the Public Accounts Committee. I support the amendment; that process should take place. The PAC should be looking at TIO and the impact of any potential sale. There will probably be some highly sensitive information going through the PAC, but it is important to remember we can go through an in-camera process. Territorians have the right to see the pathway the government is going down further scrutinised. The PAC could hold hearings and members on the committee could ask some serious questions about what the sale would mean to Territorians.
People deserve answers, so I urge the government to support the amendment the member for Nelson has moved; it is sound and sensible. Territorians deserve further scrutiny of the potential impacts of a sale of TIO.
It appears the government will not support the amendment because it has made up its mind. Last night in the Chamber we heard the Chief Minister say the government was seeking final offers for TIO. ‘When the final offer comes in, we will move extremely quickly if we decide to make the sale.’
It seems clear that the government is determined to go down this path of selling TIO. It wants to get its hands on the cash raised from selling TIO and will use that cash to fund commitments going into 2016.
The motion we are debating is part of what the government calls ‘a mature debate’. We have heard lots about mature debate in the Territory, and in Canberra through the Prime Minister. It is important, if we are to engage in a mature debate, that we discuss the potential sale with the people who own TIO, Territorians.
We need proper consultation as part of the process. The government understands this is not a popular decision with Territorians. If it felt this was a popular decision and something Territorians wanted, it would have been open and transparent during the Casuarina by-election, rather than waiting until the Monday after the election to make its intent clear with the full-page advertisement and launch of a website asking Territorians for ideas on what the sale of TIO could fund in the Territory.
In the consultation and mature discussion on the website, it asks what could be done with the money from the potential sale of TIO. The government asks for suggestions but not, ‘Do you want TIO to be sold, yes or no?’
In my electorate the message is coming through loud and clear. Territorians do not want to see TIO sold. People I would not generally expect to see come to my electorate office to sign the petition. I leave that petition at the front of my office and it fills easily. People do not want to see TIO sold, they want to keep it in the hands of Territorians.
If the government was really serious about consulting with Territorians to hear their views and make them count as part of this so-called mature debate about the sale of TIO, then they would engage in real consultation with them. Why is it we are not seeing any plans for public forums in Darwin, a place which is affected by cyclones, where people in storm surge zones want coverage? They want to know if we are unfortunate enough go through a natural disaster, as we have seen happen many times in the Territory, that they have coverage. It is those people who are very deeply affected by the potential sale of TIO.
Why is it we are not seeing a more open and accountable process, where the government puts its case to Territorians about what would happen with the sale of TIO, and Territorians have their say and ask the hard questions there and then? Why would you not hold this type of process in Katherine which is subject to flooding? You could do the same in Alice Springs where there are houses subject to flooding. You could let people have a say and ask the hard questions of the government and TIO about the potential sale and what it would mean.
I cannot understand why the government would not want to support a committee process. It is very clear it wants to make a very quick sale out of TIO and move through this issue as quickly as possible. They have been discussing this internally since March, when we put the hard questions to them about what they were doing with TIO. Previously they would say nothing was on the table, nothing was off the table. Now we see it is very much on the table.
Granted, it appears the government wants to rush through the sale of TIO, but why not have a Public Accounts Committee process so we can thoroughly scrutinise the implications? I wonder if the government will look at the petitions being signed by thousands of Territorians to not sell TIO. Would it take that into account? What genuine consultation is it doing with the business sector?
Today we heard the Chamber of Commerce say that businesses do not want to see TIO sold. They are deeply worried about what will happen to their premiums if TIO is sold. Why is the government not engaging in mature and meaningful debate with the Territory’s business community with regard to the sale of TIO? If you really want to engage in mature debate and go down the pathway of consulting Territorians about what the sale of TIO would mean and whether or not they want to see it happen, why not go to the ultimate consultation process and take it to 2016 election and see what Territorians have to say then?
No, it will not do that, because clearly it wants to make a quick cash grab. It is trying to ram through the sale of TIO and Territorians do not want it sold. Territorians rely on and trust TIO. They know they can depend on TIO and its products to support them through thick and thin, and TIO has been very good to them over the years. Its service is first-rate, it employs locals and it is a great insurer.
People do not trust government spin and the statements about TIO. The government is saying the premiums will be left intact if it is sold and Territory jobs and community support would continue. Territorians do not trust a government that makes these statements when it has, so far, gone back on many promises it has made to them. It promised reducing the cost of living for Territorians, then put their power and water bills right through the roof. It promised frontline jobs were safe, then got rid of teachers. It promises it will keep TIO staff, Territorians, in jobs if it was to sell. We have already seen what happened to the bus service with drivers losing pay and conditions. It is little wonder Territorians do not trust the government with regard to TIO and its future if it is privatised.
I hope the government, as part of its mature debate, actually listens to Territorians. I hope it takes on board the member for Nelson’s amendment to go to the PAC. If you are really serious about this, what do you have to hide from the PAC? Let this debate and scrutiny of a potential sale of TIO happen so we can see what the impact would be for Territorians.
Ultimately, our job is helping Territorians and making the Territory a better place, so it is important when you are considering the sale of a Territory asset, TIO, that Territorians are asked what they think and whether they want this to happen? Show them what it will mean to them. By going to the PAC, you can allow for that additional scrutiny that should take place, rather than ramming through the sale of TIO so you can get your hands on some short-term money.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope we see some further scrutiny around the potential sale of TIO. I hope we see some genuine consultations with Territorians about the sale of TIO and what it will all mean, and whether they want to see it happen or not. I hope the potential sale of TIO goes through the PAC for further scrutiny.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Chief Minister’s motion regarding TIO. There has been an amendment moved by the member for Nelson, I will also now speak against that.
I do not think I can take too long to explain my position on this motion the Chief Minister has brought before the House. In dealing with the member for Nelson’s amendment, over the course of the last six-and-a-bit years I have been a member of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly and I could not count on both hands and feet the number of times the member for Nelson has wanted to take something to a committee.
It seems the member for Nelson is terminally frightened of any decisions any government makes. It does not only apply to the Country Liberals government; he did it to the Labor Party as well when they were in power before August 2012. The member for Nelson’s position, generally, is to default back to, ‘Let us take it to a committee. Let us not make a decision, let us delay this. Let us wait a while and do some more work around this.’ However, the member for Nelson fails to grasp that there is, in some cases, some urgency to decisions made by government, and things have to get on.
I will quickly deal with the member for Nelson’s amendment. I will not be supporting his suggestion we take this matter to the Public Accounts Committee. This is a matter for the government and TIO to perform the requisite consultation everybody in this House has been talking about.
Today I have heard the word ‘Katherine’ used by members of the opposition more than I have heard it used in the previous six years I have been in this House ...
Mr Conlan: Yes, they use it when it suits them.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: ‘Use it when it suits them’ – I pick up on the interjection by the member for Greatorex. Yes, they use it when it suits them, when it is convenient to prosecute their argument. Outside that, the Labor Party has no interest at all in Katherine, other than to use it for its perverse political purposes. That has clearly been demonstrated throughout this debate on TIO. The Labor Party has never been a political force to be reckoned with in the Katherine electorate because it treats Katherine people and the town itself with disrespect and disdain. It has done it ever since I have been politically aware.
For them to now start crowing about Katherine and wanting to champion the cause of the people of Katherine is incredibly thin and lame. It is a veneer. Underneath that, there is no feeling by the Labor opposition for anything good that could be a part of Katherine. I am amazed. It is quite nice to hear my home town and my electorate mentioned in parliament, but there are plenty of other circumstances under which I would like Katherine to be referred to, not the way the Labor Party is using it today, and using it, it is.
The opposition members are essentially suggesting the government is not taking this issue seriously. They are accusing us of all sorts of things: not caring, not consulting, not worrying about the impacts on people or what will happen to insurance policies. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Standing here today, I am a testament to how much this government cares about what is going on with TIO. The fact that the Chief Minister has brought this motion into the House is testament to how much we care about how TIO goes forward and what that will mean to the people of the Northern Territory.
Quite rightly, the opposition has pointed out there are, potentially, some serious implications should TIO be sold. I pick up on things my colleagues have said during this debate already: that no firm decision has been taken to sell TIO, but if it is sold, then there are some potentially serious implications to that.
Unless there is an imperative, I would not support the sale of TIO; none of us would. None of us would do this just because we can and because it seems like a good idea at the time. None of us would do this for the reason outlined by the member for Wanguri: for a quick cash grab. Nothing could be further from the truth. It disappoints me immensely to hear comments like that from the member for Wanguri. She is an intelligent, articulate lady, and to start sprouting comments like that diminishes her in the eyes of all the people in this room.
Bearing in mind that if this so-called cash grab that has been bandied about by members of the opposition was to occur, it would amount to, as the Chief Minister has well and truly pointed out, the building of infrastructure in the Northern Territory. The money would be used in a future infrastructure fund for the Territory to go into projects that are needed …
Mr Elferink: Katherine flood levee.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I pick up on the interjection by the member for Port Darwin. He has just mentioned a Katherine flood levee. There is no doubt in my mind that Katherine will have another flood at some point in time. There was a big one in 1998, a smaller one in 2006. Before that the previous one was 1957. In each case, properties were damaged, insurance was called into play and people had their lives damaged and ruined. Their homes were destroyed in many cases, and it is not a very nice thing to go through.
I was caught in the 2006 flood. I owned a property in Katherine on Gorge Road where my wife and I ran a bed and breakfast business. In 2006 we had about 2 m of water flowing through the accommodation near the river. We had to go through the process of closing the business, claiming insurance and all those things.
If there was some flood mitigation measure built in Katherine, some of the effects of flooding – when it happens again – could well be mitigated. The idea of a levee has been bounced around in Katherine for quite some time. We know they cost a lot of money and the questions are: (a) would it be effective, and (b) where do you get the money from? I am no hydrologist but am sure there are many smart people who could design the infrastructure for Katherine to protect the town from flooding. As far as the money goes, if the sale of TIO was to go ahead, a project to mitigate the effects of flood and natural disasters in the Territory sits nicely underneath the auspices of an infrastructure spend.
If I am informed correctly, Roma, in Queensland, had a flood levee built a number of years ago after some major flooding. The immediate effect after that was insurance premiums dropped to billy-o. They reduced significantly because the risk of flood no longer existed.
If we go down the path of selling TIO, the proceeds need to go towards the type of flood mitigation I have referred to, thereby counteracting any suggestions that premiums might rise under a new structure for TIO.
It is disappointing to hear the rhetoric from the opposition regarding this. It brings me to the point of what the Labor government did about this when it was in power. There has been a lot of talk about the attempted sale in 2005. During that time there was a Natural Disaster Mitigation Program fund set up by the Commonwealth. The funding program went from 2003 to 2009. Funding under the National Disaster Mitigation Program ceased with the Commonwealth’s contribution included in the new National Partnership Agreement on Natural Disaster Resilience. The NDMP was a national program aimed at identifying and addressing natural disaster risk priorities across the nation such as floods, bushfires and tropical cyclones. I have been provided with some details of the funds applied for from 2003 to 2009 underneath the old mitigation program and will give a few examples.
In Tasmania, the Launceston City Council Launceston levee works program upgraded the existing ageing levee system to a one-in-200-year flood level. The upgrade protected 640 homes, approximately 78 businesses, 16 government services, a university and a museum. The Launceston City Council was granted $13m from that fund. In South Australia, the city of Norwood undertook First Creek flood mitigation works with a grant of $280 000. In Queensland, the Esk Shire Council was granted $150 000 for flood priorities and inundation events arising from flooding of the Brisbane River to enable appropriate planning, mitigation and response strategies to be implemented.
I could go on, but from 2003 to 2009 a large sum of money was given out for mitigation of disasters. I will list the amount over five years by state: the ACT got $2m, New South Wales got $23m, Queensland got $19m, South Australia got $6.8m, Tasmania got $16m, Victoria got $7m and WA got $9.8m.
I turn to the amount of money granted to the NT in Labor’s period of government. Bear in mind that this money did not arrive automatically on the doorstep; as a government you had to be proactive and apply to the federal government for that money. For the Northern Territory, for grants under that federal government Natural Disaster Mitigation Program fund, in 2003-04 there were no applications; in 2004-05 there was one; in 2005-06 there was one; in 2006-07 there were no applications; in 2007-08 there were five grants; and in 2008-09 there were four. That came to a grand total of $2.3m to the Northern Territory in five years for disaster mitigation. Let me point out that not one of those applications to the federal government for disaster included mitigation for floods. What a disgrace.
The opposition, during its reign of 11 very long years, had the opportunity to get money from the federal government to help mitigate against disasters such as the Katherine floods. It did almost nothing except to get the Territory into debt.
If the Labor Party members’ memories have faded since that period from 1998 to 2003, I can forgive them as it was a few years after the flood. Maybe they forgot about the Katherine flood, that would not surprise me. Surely after the 2006 flood, when this grant scheme was still in existence, the Labor government could have applied to the federal government to mitigate for floods around Katherine. But no, it did nothing.
That goes back to the original point I made about the number of times I have heard Katherine mentioned in this room today compared with what I have heard from the Labor opposition over the past six years since I have been in this House. It is a telling story about the very thin veneer of Labor when its members talk about how they care for the people of Katherine.
This afternoon we have all heard much about TIO and the position it is in. I commend the Chief Minister for his motion in the House this afternoon, which is supported. I do not need to repeat many of the things that have already been said in this House. However, one thing I will say again is that it would be only for very good and sound reasons – the reasons articulated by the Chief Minister and others on this side of the House – that I would support the sale of TIO. That applies to all of my colleagues. It would only be for good and sound reason that we would consider this.
Do you think we want to visit upon ourselves all the grief of negative public opinion? Do you think we would be doing this just for the heck of it, just to stir up some public hornets’ nest? Do you think we like having the Labor opposition and the member for Nelson berate us in this House over our considerations in this space? No, we do not but we are not doing this just on a whim; consideration is being given to this for very good reason.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I have said everything I need to say this afternoon. I support the original motion put forward by the Chief Minister.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Mr Deputy Speaker, we support TIO. I welcome the tone of the member for Katherine’s contribution; it was certainly more temperate than other speakers in this House. I agree with the member for Wanguri that when you listen to the Chief Minister speak on this subject you cannot help but think the CLP is moving to a quick fire sale. When he said last night that they are looking at final offers and there is the possibility of a quick sale, how could you come to any other conclusion? The tone of the member for Katherine’s contribution was better, but we feel there is no rush or need to panic-sell TIO as there are plenty of things we need to look at and discuss. On our side, our basic default position is not to support the sale of TIO. That has been communicated very well by our members, led by the Leader of the Opposition.
There are very sound reasons we have a Territory Insurance Office. TIO has purpose and value. You can find that out yourself by reading TIO’s Statement of Corporate Intent which explains its purpose and value:
TIO started to address market failure. Is TIO still able to address market failure? On our side, we believe TIO is still providing guarantees and confidence in the Territory marketplace. The CLP has not answered, with confidence, the question of that being lost with the sale of TIO. We want to guarantee there are good insurance products in the Northern Territory with good terms and conditions at a competitive rate. That is why TIO is there. We want to make sure other insurance companies provide good products at a fair price. We want it to be a competitive marketplace, and the existence of TIO in the Territory marketplace ensures that. That is our belief and that has not been challenged.
The Leader of the Opposition spoke about MAC and workers compensation in her contribution. Why TIO first came to address market failure in those areas was explained in the Statement of Corporate Intent. Others may provide flood and cyclone insurance, but TIO guarantees this product is in the market at a competitive rate with good terms and conditions. This is why we support TIO. TIO is here to address market failure; that is why it was created.
The effect of the loss on Territorians has not been explained in a sufficient way by the CLP. We support the TIO because we know from experience and lessons from past disasters that TIO is there for Territorians. There were Katherine lessons and Darwin lessons. That is why TIO is loved by some, respected by many.
At my office, it is similar to what the member for Wanguri was saying about the petition being signed. I believe other members of this House have said it and the member for Nelson spoke with great confidence on it. People stop to talk about TIO. They talk about their sentimental attachment to TIO which was formed through experience. It is not because they like a poster, it is because they have had a personal experience of being well served by TIO that leads them to trust TIO and its product. It is a sentiment that has been formed through experience.
The sale of public assets is often a highly-heated debate. It has been highly contested in every jurisdiction and is one reason the suggestion of the member for Nelson about the Public Accounts Committee has merit and is worthy of consideration. The risks the member for Port Darwin raised can be managed. I thought he went a little Chicken Little in his response to the member for Nelson.
As an example, I do not agree with him that if the Chamber of Commerce appeared before the Public Accounts Committee to talk about why they think TIO is valuable it would decrease the value of TIO. If the Chamber of Commerce, as it has said, is opposed to the sale of TIO and thinks it is a valuable product that provides a valuable service in the marketplace in the Northern Territory, and went before a Public Accounts Committee to explain why they think TIO is valuable, I cannot see how that affects the market price of TIO, which was the member for Port Darwin’s concern. Other risks can be managed.
This sale of TIO was not that long ago. The member for Nelson gave us a history lesson on that. The Territory public has been very clear that they value their public institutions and very much hold the position that a public asset is owned by the public. That is not a controversial position, it is a position that has been made clear in other jurisdictions in reaction to sales.
We are, as has been said a few times, the last jurisdiction to come to this. That provides you the opportunity to learn lessons from where it happened elsewhere. One of those lessons is clear: the public believes they have the right to say what happens to their public assets. The member for Port Darwin went to great lengths to explain why that was a bad idea. We do not agree it is a bad idea. We think you should test this, explain this and take it to the public. You were not elected to sell TIO – in fact, quite the opposite. I quote the very clear position of the CLP before the last election, as articulated by the person who was elected to be Chief Minister in this term of office:
That is what Territorians voted for at the last election when they voted for the CLP. They believed that was the position of the CLP. Now we have a new Chief Minister, not one voted in at the last election, who has changed the position. They went to the ballot box in 2012 with very clear position. I quote again:
That is crystal clear and unambiguous and is what Territorians voted for. You have to accept that in opposition. That was the position the CLP took forward. That is part of the platform that saw them elected in 2012. Now, in 2014, with a different Chief Minister, we see a change in tack from the CLP.
What does selling TIO mean? What will be the impact? What did the CLP believe the impact of selling TIO would be? The former Chief Minister, the one who was elected by Territorians said, ‘They should not sell TIO, they should be able to manage their affairs and to make these commitment. A proper government should not sell the farm.’
According to the CLP, selling the TIO is selling the farm. Once it is gone, it is gone. We have significant concerns that the loss of TIO will lead to changes to the insurance market. We have heard concerns expressed very clearly elsewhere that the loss of the Territory Insurance Office will lead to unaffordable insurance premiums.
TIO being in our market guarantees we have a good market with competitive prices, with good terms and conditions. It is not all about the price; we have to be aware it is also about the terms and conditions. We know this because it is a lesson from other jurisdictions that have gone before us. This can be explored through a Public Accounts Committee: what has been the impact post-sale? What can you look forward to? In other jurisdictions we have seen prices go up.
This year a federal parliamentary inquiry looked at this and I quote from its recommendation:
That is the recommendation from the federal government. There is an opportunity here for the Chief Minister. He talked about spreading and managing risk, and diversifying the limitations of the TIO. It would take hard work and negotiation and it might not come off, but there is something that can be explored with the federal government and other jurisdictions’ governments regarding the Territory Insurance Office. Its value has been recognised by others, but its value does not appear to be recognised by the CLP.
Rather than advancing quickly down this path as the government is – going to final offers according to the Chief Minister last night – there is another opportunity to be explored. If you do not want to do the work, ask the Public Accounts Committee to do it.
What opportunities are being expressed quite clearly where other markets are not providing affordable premiums as TIO does? Let us explore that and do that work. Let us not fail Territorians by failing to do that work. We do not want to see Territorians lumbered with unaffordable insurance premiums because TIO is sold. We have seen the impacts of other insurance agencies being sold in other states leading to unaffordable premiums.
The recommendation was made because of the huge insurance costs our fellow Australians pay in other parts of Australia. I go back to the report:
However, the government wants to consider selling a model which will be lost if TIO is sold. The Chief Minister last night was talking about moving to final offers and a quick sale. This conversation started after the Chief Minister admitted they started this conversation in Cabinet in March, after the Casuarina by-election and in the lead-up to Christmas. Oddly enough, the CLP has a policy of discussing the sale of TIO in the lead-up to Christmas.
The elected Chief Minister who is now no longer in the role said, ‘Now there are 250 employees, most of them families of the Top End and particularly in Katherine, who know how important TIO is. It appears, under the cover of the Christmas period, when we are all going to our Christmas drinks, going to Casuarina and buying plastic hammers and things like, he is already at work preparing to sell our TIO. I reckon there is something he needs to understand: this is something that belongs to all Territorians. He needs to come out and explain to us why on earth would you want to sell TIO.’
That was the former member for Blain, the CLP Chief Minister who was elected to lead the CLP in this term of office saying not to have this conversation in the lead-up to Christmas. The CLP is doing just that. ‘Let us talk about selling TIO in the lead-up to Christmas.’ That quote from the elected Chief Minister of the Northern Territory on the government’s position going into the last election was quite clear not sell it and that they would fight to retain it. Obviously we have lost that Chief Minister; he is not here anymore.
There is a trust deficit with this government. It has broken faith with the people of the Northern Territory. It has broken promise after broken promise and is now walking away from another clear part of the CLP platform. I again quote the elected Chief Minister:
The people of the Northern Territory can be understandably confused at the change of position from the CLP. They might not be used to surprises anymore; they have seen the CLP break so many promises. We all thought we knew, going into the last election, what the position of the CLP was when it came to TIO. There is a trust deficit with the CLP and this government: when they say one thing and do another.
Rapid Creek flood mitigation is an example the Chief Minister has used regularly in this debate. ‘Sell TIO and you might get flood mitigation in Rapid Creek.’ Rapid Creek flood mitigation was an election promise at the last Territory election. Now it has been reduced to, ‘If we sell TIO you might get it’.
People wonder why there is a trust deficit with this government. It is something you should be doing. Every year you come into this House with a budget. It is part of the ordinary practice of government. You decide how you allocate that budget and the priorities in that budget. One of your priorities should be your election promises. One of those election promises was flood mitigation in Rapid Creek. Now you are saying, ‘If we sell TIO you may get that’.
One of the other things the Chief Minister spoke about – and the member for Port Darwin also touched upon – was risk about reinsurance, so it has been covered.
What does TIO say about risk and reinsurance? I quote from its Statement of Corporate Intent:
The experience of the occurrence of a one-in-600-year event of Cyclone Tracy in 1974:
TIO provides for the likelihood of a one-in-250-year event in determining its reinsurance program design. So it takes a conservative approach to risk management.
It is not the scary thing the member for Port Darwin talks up. It is a risk. It is in there; they are very clear about it. We and the CLP know about it, but the CLP is talking it up. It is in TIO’s report that it takes a very conservative approach to reinsuring its risk in the Territory.
What does the Chairman of the TIO Board say about the future strengths of TIO? We have heard the Chief Minister reference TIO. At one stage he said they were recommending its sale, but has recanted that.
What does the Chairman of TIO say about the sale, about the future of viability of TIO? In the annual report he said:
The chairman of the board, in the annual report, stated quite clearly he believes TIO is in a position to provide for Territorians for years to come. There is nothing – no sentiment, no alarms bells -about the solvency of TIO and its ability to deliver to the marketplace. We saw how it manages risk in the Statement of Corporate Intent. It made profits five years in a row. There is nothing from the chairman of the board in his annual report that says ‘Careful, we might need to sell’.
We have seen how it manages risk. We have seen the confidence the chairman has in the product. We heard from the Chamber of Commerce which said, ‘Do not sell TIO, this would be a backward step’. We heard from the federal inquiry that selling TIO could be an impediment to the development of the north and that the provision of affordable insurance premiums in the Territory, which is dependent on TIO, helps develop this place.
We heard from a number of people the value of keeping TIO. These things need to be considered prior to any decision for sale. We are very concerned that the CLP, through the words of the Chief Minister, is advancing to final offers and looking to possibly make a quick sale.
TIO provides a competitive effect in the Territory. It provides a dampening effect on insurance cost. It makes for an affordable product. It helps us develop the north. This is a model that has been discussed in other jurisdictions.
We have an opportunity through TIO, not a risk. It is about how you look at the product and the work you are prepared to do. That is why we think you can task the Public Accounts Committee to do work.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we support the TIO. We believe the CLP needs to demonstrate what it is saying; they should take it to an election and back yourselves. Take your change of policy and your new Chief Minister to an election.
Mr STYLES (Transport): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will speak against the amendment and in support of the Chief Minister’s motion.
I agree with the member for Fannie Bay’s last comment – the one thing I agree with – that they support TIO. We also firmly support TIO …
Mr Elferink: What does that mean exactly?
Mr STYLES: That is right. He said it, and now I have said it from our side. I will expand on that definition.
The amended motion said that all words after ‘acknowledges’ should be omitted, etcetera. It also said TIO belongs to the people of the Northern Territory. In fact, member for Nelson, it does. Our responsibility, as a government, is to the people of the Northern Territory. To quote my colleague, the member for Port Darwin, we are here for the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory. It is in their interest that we make these considerations. When I elaborate on a number of things, it should become clear.
I will talk about a couple of things in relation to what various members said. The member for Fannie Bay made a statement in relation to TIO and the report that was done. He said people are envious of us and our position. TIO belongs to the people of the Northern Territory, and so does the debt we inherited from the previous government. On this graph you can see the rising debt. This belongs to the people of the Northern Territory. In fact, this not only belongs to the people of the Northern Territory, it also belongs to my children …
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Props.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not think they have been used.
Mr Elferink: That has been ruled in order. The Speaker takes exception to corflute-type props.
Mr Vowles: Get that thing out.
Mr WOOD: Mr Deputy Speaker, I did not know the type of material it was made of was important ...
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Johnston, I will give instructions in this House, not you.
Mr WOOD: I was saying the type of material the prop was made of was relevant to the argument.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It has been made quite clear that props should not be used. If you are using a prop, could you please refrain, member for Sanderson. If you are reading from notes, that is quite acceptable, thank you.
Mr STYLES: I have used graphs as part of my explanations in the past. It is not some political stunt; these are factual graphs issued in relation to the non-financial public sector net debt to explain to those watching.
I note the member for Wanguri said we own TIO. We do, but if we have a major disaster such as a cyclone in Darwin – look at the bill from Cyclone Tracy, do the mathematics and calculate – the government could be up for a $30bn bill. It would probably be for more than that, but let us say $30bn. There are approximately 100 000 taxpayers – it is not quite that many, but we will say that for round figures – in the Northern Territory. If we have a bill and TIO has to pay out, then my children and my grandchildren, when they become taxpayers, will owe about $300 000 each. TIO is guaranteed by the government and the government represents, as you pointed out, the people of the Northern Territory. If we allow this exposure to go, your daughter and grandchildren will owe a truck load of money.
I explained what $1bn was in this House yesterday; it is a really big number. I am stunned at the lack of business acumen on that side of the Chamber. In fact, I find it amazing, but I am not stunned, because they left us with the massive $5.5bn debt. They thought that was okay – good fiscal management. They thought a 98% debt to income ratio was fantastic. I do not know whether business or anyone else in Australia agrees with you, but I understand you think it is a good number. That is fine.
The member for Fannie Bay said, ‘Do not talk about this before Christmas’. This is not some thought bubble we had last weekend over dinner, member for Fannie Bay; this has been ongoing since March. It is astounding that when you guys wanted to sell TIO in 2006, the board did not agree with you. You said, ‘We want to sell TIO’. The board said, ‘No, it is not the right time’, but you still wanted to go sell it. Now the board has come to us and said, ‘Now is the right time to sell it and we are advising you to sell it’, you change your mind. How do you work that? The board said do not sell it, but you wanted to sell it. Now the board says it is okay – the whole ball game has changed with the shifting of global capital and the way it moves, the reinsurance opportunities and the competition coming in relation to reinsurance – and you say, ‘Oh, no, you cannot sell it’.
Let us look at your previous government. On this subject about selling TIO, I stood in the 2005 elections as a candidate. I do not recall the Labor Party going to the 2005 election saying, ‘We are going to sell TIO’. Where was your mandate in 2006 to go to the public, against the board and the people at that stage, and say, ‘We want to sell TIO’? How do you walk into this House and now say, ‘You do not have a mandate’? How hypocritical is that! I find that amazing. I am stunned and amazed at how you can now have a totally different view, which is again opposed to the board.
Let me look at a few facts. Government asset sales are not new. Selling government assets started in 1991, including by Labor’s Paul Keating. Labor’s Paul Keating sold the Commonwealth Bank and Qantas. All other states and territories, including Labor states, did it as well.
You guys get your policy out of Canberra; it is national policy. You have a sub-branch of the ALP here, but you get your directions from Canberra. I do not know how you cannot understand the rest of your colleagues around the country, because they get the same policy from the same party you do.
They started in Australia in earnest with the sale of the first tranche of the Commonwealth Bank in 1991, an enterprise already operating in a commercial environment. Funny about that, same as TIO, operating in a commercial environment. One factor supporting its sale was the newly-introduced capital adequacy guideline for the banking industry, because things change.
I heard the Leader of the Opposition last night say you cannot unscramble an egg. When you do that, you start with an egg. It is a round thing, you open it up, and you cook it. Once you scramble it, you cannot go back. That is true. TIO was born out of a necessity. We had this egg that was born – here it is, we have an egg ...
Mr Wood: Laid.
Mr STYLES: Laid, thank you for the correction. We have this egg that was laid, and we are going to scramble it. Things move on, and as time goes by, the egg cooks and we end up with a scrambled egg. But everything changes, nothing stays the same, as my colleague, the member for Araluen, so eloquently put it in her presentation in this debate.
Let us go on with a few more of these facts. In TIO’s case, we have a solid business based on strong prudential standards capable of moving forward under the APRA standards.
Proceeds of Commonwealth asset sales since 1990 amount to about $30bn. The Reserve Bank estimates that the sale of companies owned by state governments in Australia is of a similar magnitude at $31bn. The progressive sale of the Commonwealth Bank, with proceeds in three tranches totalling $8.1bn, was the largest financial sector privatisation. Three state banks have been sold and six states have privatised insurance companies.
Asset sales in the transport and communication sector have been dominated by transport-related sales with the part privatisation of Qantas in 1992-93, and the remainder of Qantas in 1995-96. This was followed by the sale of airports in Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth.
Let us look at railways. The business units of Australian National, except the interstate track, were privatised in mid-1997. In 1995-96 and 1996-97, privatisation was dominated by sales of the Victorian Electricity Generators and Distributors. Fancy that, competition into electricity generation.
Let me turn to the current federal government asset recycling program, a terrific scheme. The opposition said we go to Canberra and cannot get any money. I do not know how well you did when you went to Canberra, but then they did not have the $667bn debt we have now. Yes, it is tough, so you have to think outside the square. That is what business people do when faced with challenges. They do not borrow more money, they rise to the challenge and come up with solutions to the problems they face, otherwise they are out of business. If the Labor government was still in control in Canberra we would probably be out of business because the debt would be well over one trillion dollars. That is what you people do; you are very good at borrowing money but not very good at generating wealth.
Let us look at the asset recycling scheme. The state and federal governments all realise the economy is in a transitional phase. In other states they are transitioning out of the mining and manufacturing sectors. The federal government asset recycling program is designed to encourage states and territories to sell their assets and re-use that money for more infrastructure building assets. The Chief Minister has made that clear. The Giles government has been working on this problem and in the May budget put in place the first building blocks to overcome the boom-and-bust cycle, while at the same time paying off Labor’s debt.
The federal government’s nation-building program will equal eight new Snowy Mountain schemes built in Australia in the next six years through the government asset recycling. What a fantastic scheme to stimulate an economy almost crippled by the massive debt inherited from the Labor government.
The Labor states of South Australia and the ACT have also signed up to this process, with South Australia already announcing the sale of its motor accidents compensation. I heard members on the other side talk about this. I do not know what part of ‘no’ they do not understand. ‘No’ is the second simplest word in the English language. It is an ‘N’ and an ‘O’. I wonder what part of the ‘N’ and ‘O’ the opposition members do not understand. It is very simple; MAC is not being sold and that has been made very clear by members.
If they were in charge they would keep TIO and expose it to many of the things already discussed in this House.
I quote from the ‘TIO addresses the Parliamentary Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia’ media release by the TIO Chairman yesterday:
If what we heard from the other side of the House was so fantastic why has the ALP – a central organisation that makes policy – not made a policy to reintroduce government insurance offices? You will note all the dates I quoted are through the 1990s. In the 2000s, every state and territory, bar one, had a Labor government, so they had total control of the country. If government insurance offices were so good and it was so disastrous out there, why did they not reintroduce a policy and go back into the insurance business? I challenge anyone on that side of the House to answer that question: why did you not make that a national policy? Because In 2005 you were thinking about selling TIO against the wishes of the board. I did not see a federal policy from Canberra to say, ‘Government insurance offices are great and we should keep them’. I still do not see that policy.
When the Chief Minister challenges the opposition to create policy, why have we not had a real policy debate on why you want to do this? All we hear is so much emotional talk from that side of the House. On this side of the House we make decisions based on evidence, not emotion. You must have the debate we are having now, but you have to look at evidence versus emotion.
I return to the media release by the Chairman of TIO:
One of the things that changed, even in the last five years, is the movement of global capital around the world. Other national and international companies are able to work together to get the cost of reinsurance down to more manageable levels.
Some of the information I have received is probably commercial-in-confidence so I cannot give you some of the figures. However, I can say the cost of reinsurance for TIO is far higher than some of its competitors. The competitors are getting far better deals on reinsurance.
Returning to the media release, it quotes Mr Bruce Carter, the chairman of the board:
In 2006 the previous Labor government was at odds with the board. Things have changed as the world changes. We have to move with change.
I remind those opposite that the board came to us and said, ‘We need to fix a looming problem’. Let us fix it while – to quote the member for Port Darwin – the car is nice and shiny and has no dents in it.
I learned many years ago another car analogy. Volvos are very good cars and you can hang on to them for a long time, but there is an old saying, ‘When the headlight globe goes in a Volvo it is time to sell it, because after all those years everything starts to deteriorate from the front to the back’. That is a fair sign many people have found, because they made the headlight globes really well. When everything starts to wear out and things change – and you cannot change the passage of time – then it is time to go.
I will look at a couple of issues in relation to the Chamber of Commerce. On her ABC show this morning, Julia Christensen’s asked, ‘Does the Chamber support the sale or will you be actively opposing it?’
Mr Greg Bicknell, the CE of the Chamber of Commerce replied, ‘We have just, as you mentioned, stepped out of a meeting where we have been discussing this. We have been conducting a survey of our membership across the Territory and members have come back very strongly opposed to the privatisation so we will certainly be taking these concerns of our members forward to government as they look at this issue.’
The reporter asked, ‘Why are your members opposed to the sale?’
Mr Bicknell said a few things but the pertinent point was, ‘Well, there was actually a large, fairly substantial percentage of the people who were still unsure and do not know enough about exactly what the impacts on their businesses would be’.
Mrs FINOCCHIARO: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I seek an extension of time for the minister.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STYLES: Many other speakers have commented on how this will play out. I do not expect those opposite to understand this, but it is about business and how it works. When you buy a business, you pay hard-earned and hard-fought-for money. A business has a value. TIO has a value.
If somebody buys the various arms of TIO, excluding the MAC Scheme, I do not know of any successful business that would trash the brand. I do not know any business that would buy something and then jack the prices up and change the whole nature of it, because that business operates in a commercial environment. TIO is just like any other, privately-owned company, except the people of the Northern Territory have to guarantee its losses ...
Mr Elferink: Taxpayers are not real people, though.
Mr STYLES: I have just reminded them of that, member for Port Darwin. If we have a massive catastrophic cyclone and the bill, for instance, is $30bn, every taxpayer in the Northern Territory would have to cough up $300 000 to pay for damage because TIO has to pay it. That is not the whole bill; that is just what TIO has to pay out – $30bn, at $300 000 per taxpayer. I do not want my children and grandchildren to inherit a $300 000 bill. They already owe somewhere between $50 000 and $60 000 because of ALP mismanagement in the Territory and federally. When you add up the debts and divide them by the number of people in Australia, it adds up to, I think, more than $30 000. When you add that to the Territory’s debt of, I think, about $26 000 per man, woman and child, you are looking at a huge debt.
The opposition wants to keep Territory taxpayers exposed to that sort of risk. Insurance companies spread their risk, and this is what they do not seem to understand. Insuring and managing risk is the business of insurance companies. Selling is what the company and its boards want to do. However, the people opposite want to keep all of that risk at home. They want to expose Territory taxpayers to those debt levels. Is that looking after the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory? I think not. I am not surprised they do not understand business, given the way they ran the Territory for 11 years and the mess they created.
In the second page of the transcript of the interview with Mr Bicknell the reporter said, ‘So you are worried that if the Territory is lumped in with northern Australia, with north Queensland, we will pay much higher premiums because of the higher risk compared to us?’
Mr Bicknell said, ‘Well, that is one of the potential risks’.
I will not quote the rest of the paragraph. Suffice to say, TIO is required to operate in a commercial environment. It has to get its premiums right. But as the cost of reinsurance goes up, so the premiums will have to go up – something will have to give. If the amount of reinsurance comes down, it further exposes Territory taxpayers and families. I cannot believe, as a responsible person – not even as a politician, but a responsible person – you would want to expose your family, friends and relatives to that debt level in a disaster. This is what TIO wants to do, which is why the chairman is talking about spreading that risk.
By legislation TIO cannot operate interstate. I am wondering if the opposition wants us to go interstate and join with north Queensland. I note the Leader of the Opposition in her speech last night said:
I have so much more I would love to say on this issue; however, time is running out. There are a couple of things I will say about the criticism about community investment of TIO. The Leader of the Opposition said a number of things in relation to programs which will disappear.
These people who buy TIO as a business will have an excellent brand. The CEO, Mr Richard Harding, said that since Labor tried to sell TIO in 2006, a lot of work has been done to get TIO into a better financial situation and on a better commercial footing. The work was not done under Labor. One of the reasons they did not want to sell in 2006 is because it was not in a position to do so. Now it is. As I said about the shift of global capital, it is much easier for competitors to reinsure. That global capital moves very quickly, is able to shift, and it has moved the rates at which they can get reinsurance.
Look at customer and the strategic marketing contracts TIO has. In relation to the opposition’s comments on CareFlight, that is a joint sponsorship between corporate TIO and the MAC Scheme. The cost is $750 000 over three years, is ongoing and expires on 30 June 2016.
TIO is corporate sponsor to TIO Stadium, TIO Traeger Park, Lions Club Children’s Film Festival, Disability Service Awards $3000, Young NT Youth Achievers $40 000, Motor Traders Association Apprentice of the Year Awards $10 000, CDU Scholarships $50 000, TIO Conference – which I went to the other week and it was a terrific show – Business Enterprise Centre $5000, and Northern Territory Emergency Services Vehicle in Alice Springs $1000.
We have told the parliament and the opposition we are not selling the MAC Scheme; we will have somebody to administer it. The Leader of the Opposition was saying the road safety aspect of this will go, all will be terrible, and the sky will fall in.
Other sponsorships are: the Michael Long Centre, $1.5m over 10 years; Northern Territory Football League, $45 000 over three years; the Central Australian Football League – she mentioned that has gone; Darwin Turf Club branding and road safety leveraging, $10 000; St John First Aid at the scene $10 000; NT Hockey Association, and the list goes on.
Any business person would have to be crazy not to continue being a good corporate citizen by maintaining the brand. They will pay for the brand while we have a good brand. If you send it to a committee it will deteriorate. While we have a good brand we need to look at it. The board, being a responsible group of people, supports it. It approached us and we have reacted. It was not something we did yesterday; this happened in March. It now has the information it needs.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the motion to the House.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Mr Deputy Speaker, does the member for Sanderson commend the member for Nelson’s amended motion …
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Had the member been listening he would know what I was addressing.
Mr Vowles: What is your point of order, mate?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we refrain from that type of language in the parliament please?
Mr Styles: Get your facts right.
Mr VOWLES: Well …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I have quiet or you will both be out! Member for Johnston, you have the floor, continue with your speech.
Mr VOWLES: Mr Deputy Speaker, if you ever wanted to see how the constituents of Sanderson and Port Darwin are being short changed by their members, the contribution by those members in the House have shown the tax dollars they are paying have been wasted. They were full of mistruths and weird examples. We had an egg example from the member for Sanderson, the former kindergarten cop, and then on to Volvos – if the lights do not work you must throw the car away. The member for Port Darwin was going on about not devaluing the debate. His contribution devalued the debate enormously. We heard the Chief Minister say many times we need a mature debate around this. That was not very mature at all. I was disgusted listening to comparisons about a car and people sleeping with each other for money. It was bizarre, but that is what we get from the member for Port Darwin every now and then. We know it is the last day of two weeks of sittings and we expect some bizarre comments from you, but discussing the price of somebody sleeping with somebody else – now it is determined they will sleep together, it is all around a price.
We are trying to have a mature debate about the selling of a Territory public asset. We support the amended motion of the member for Nelson. This should go to the Public Accounts Committee for scrutiny, because this is important and we need to get it right. People think you guys are just about to sign on the dotted line and this is just a talkfest; this is already happening.
The debate and your contributions have all been about not devaluing TIO because you have people ready to buy it. They have already put in offers and the Chief Minister said the government will sell it quickly, so this is simply a talkfest.
The day after the Casuarina by-election there was no mention of it on the website. You could not be up front and honest with Territorians as you did not put it on the website after the by-election. The day after the by-election there was a website asking what we should spend the money on. There is nowhere to say no, just where to spend the money.
It is important for us on this side of the House to represent Territorians. We moved a motion last night to give voice to the thousands of Territorians who signed a petition and the many people coming into our offices, pulling us up in the street and in the mall saying, ‘Do not sell this. Stick up for us. Do not sell our public asset. It is our asset which the government of the day manages. It is not for the government of the day to sell.’ Last night we debated a motion the Leader of the Opposition moved not to sell our public assets.
We see what is going on with the government members who think they are so smart and above all of us. You are selling TIO as a cash grab to pay for your unfunded election commitments in the bush and to build a war chest for the 2016 election. The only way you will be on that side of the House is to try to fool Territorians again by splashing money everywhere.
You are holding the people to ransom in Milner along Rapid Creek, saying, ‘Support the sale of TIO or you will not get the flood mitigation works done’. As I said last night, you promised $1.5m. I remember the candidate, Jo Sangster, standing next to Terry Mills, the then Opposition Leader, who was the elected Chief Minister, saying, ‘We will give $1.5m to flood works as a down payment, and we will do more’. There has not been 1c spent on that election commitment and you have the audacity to say, ‘We are going to sell TIO so we can do Rapid Creek for you’.
I believe this deal has already been done. You have somebody ready to go, and by the end of this year, if not by the next sittings, you will announce that.
Member for Port Darwin, I cannot believe the contribution you made. What makes it better is you are like a small child, and big daddy member for Sanderson topped it off – absolutely brilliant! ‘All those Volvo owners, get rid of them; if your lights are on the blink, sell it.’ I hope Volvo is not involved in any of your business dealings because I do not think the company will be very happy with you saying the cars are on the blink and if your lights go, you are cactus.
Then we had the mistruths about TIO, that we did not have a mandate in 2005 to sell TIO as we had not taken it to the election. You need to check your facts. Our recommendation was made. The election was won in 2005. You lost again, that is fine. Congratulations on being elected in 2008, member for Sanderson. Well done after that great campaign you ran with midnight letterbox drops – a very proud start to your political career.
In 2006, my understanding is there was a recommendation that the people’s voices be heard, which the then Leader of the Opposition, Terry Mills, was part of, with the member for Nelson. There was a march, and 12 000 signatures …
Mr Wood: Fifteen thousand.
Mr VOWLES: Thank you, member for Nelson. There were 15 000 signatures on a petition. The difference between the Labor government at the time and your government is the Labor government listened to the people. They took it to the people, listened and did not touch it. To say we did not have a mandate in 2005 and tried to sneak it through in 2006 is simply not correct.
What you have already done is, as Terry Mills said, is sell the farm. You are going to get rid of it.
The Volvo has done my head in, I tell you. Thank God that prop you used has been ruled out of order. You cannot use any props anymore about your budget. In the last four speeches you made, it has taken you less than four minutes to bring that graph out. That is why I had to say something. I thought, ‘The member for Sanderson, Peter Styles, is not a bad bloke, but I reckon he will pull that graph out within four minutes’. Yesterday it was three minutes and thirty five seconds; I am timing you now. It is getting ridiculous. I did not think you would do it today. I went outside to get a drink of water, I came back in, and what was he holding up? That bloody budget graph again. He has been in government over two years, and it has taken him two years …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I am seeking clarification as to whether this is the leadership speech by the member for Johnston, while the member for Fannie Bay is not in the room.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is not a point of order, Chief Minister. Member for Johnston, as I said, I will issue the orders here, not you.
Mr VOWLES: I apologise for that, mate. It was pretty cheeky, that is what I was saying. The Chief Minister has come into the Chamber to put his authority on everybody. He has tried to butt in on my speech …
Mr Giles: Your leadership speech!
Mr VOWLES: We are 100% behind our leader, the member for Karama. The member for Karama will lead us into the 2016 election, and you will be running scared, mate ...
Mr GILES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I am just wondering if this is the kiss of death, when the member for Johnston …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we desist with all of this childish behaviour, please? That goes to both sides of parliament.
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I was going to remind you of Standing Order 51 and the fact we have had three frivolous interjections in a row from the Chief Minister. The Chair has been quite harsh on the opposition members today, and I ask you to be even-handed to members opposite for their behaviour.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr VOWLES: I repeat for the public record that the NT Labor Caucus is 100% behind the member for Karama leading us into the 2016 election. We will continue to hold this bad government to account on everything.
TIO is a public asset we need and must keep. We do not have many public assets, so we need to ensure we look after them.
As the local member for Johnston I am involved with flood mitigation and the issues of Rapid Creek and Millner residents. As I said last night, it is important we do this properly. You should not hold the people of Millner to ransom, ‘Support TIO’s sale or the work will not be done’. Because it is so important, we moved a motion last night. I welcome the opportunity to again talk on TIO. I thank the Chief Minister for bring this motion to the House, because it gives us another opportunity to remind this government to be responsible and not sell TIO.
As I said, I was disgusted with the members for Sanderson’s and Port Darwin’s comments about talking it down as we will not receive as much money. If you have enough money in the bank, anything is for sale. Do not worry that it is not your asset. You only manage the asset; you are not supposed to sell it. You are supposed to care about and look after Territorians.
You promised to lower the cost of living when you came into government in 2012. ‘We will lower the cost of living. Your job is safe.’ That is another furphy. During the 2012 election campaign you stood outside government agencies, handing out ‘Your Job is Safe’ messages. I believe we have a picture of the member for Port Darwin gleefully, with a face like the cat that has swallowed the budgie, holding up ‘Your Job is Safe’ sign. We know that is not true. I personally know that is not true because you sacked my wife. We dealt with that, so we know it is not correct ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I am not entirely sure what he is referring to, but if the member wants to make an accusation of that nature he should do so by way of substantive motion. Beyond that, take that comment outside and I will sue you, because it is not true. You, sir, are a liar!
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, you should withdraw that, and that is not a point of order.
Mr ELFERINK: I withdraw the ‘liar’ part, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr VOWLES: Oh, come on. We know it is true, anyway.
Mr Elferink: It is not true and you can take it outside and you will hear from my lawyer.
Mr VOWLES: You can threaten me all you want, member for Port Darwin, and point your finger, but the truth is the truth.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we please have a bit of order in here and get back to the debate, rather than personal slanging matches.
Mr VOWLES: As I said, in 2012, you said, ‘Your job is safe. We will lower the cost of living.’
You know what was not in the election material? Do you know, member for Fong Lim? Member for Blain, you are the new bloke, do you know what was not in the 2012 election commitments?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Johnston, we are not in committee stage on debate where we ask questions. If you could just …
Mr VOWLES: I am getting to it. What was not in the 2012 election campaign was, ‘We are going to sell off public assets’. I did not hear anybody saying, ‘We will sell TIO’. You did not have a mandate, and this is the problem we keep going on about. If you are going to sell public assets – the assets Territorians own that you are supposed to manage on behalf of Territorians – take it to the 2016 election and let the people decide. If they decide they want a CLP government for another term, then you have a mandate. But take it to the election and say, ‘If you want to elect us in 2016 to manage your funds and govern for you, we will govern for all Territorians, but will tell you now we will sell TIO and we could sell other assets’. Take that to the election. Stop trying to hide things and get a cash grab so you can fund your unfunded election commitments and build up a war chest.
We are trying to have a mature discussion about public assets. We had that last night when we brought the motion to the House. We tried to have one today, but the contributions from the members for Port Darwin and Sanderson were on how we are devaluing TIO. We are supposed to stand up for Territorians. You say by us standing up for Territorians about not selling TIO we are devaluing the product you are trying to sell; that after we beat up the new car with a jackhammer, it will not be worth anything when you try to sell it.
As I said, you have already made the decision you are selling it; it is already done. I truly believe it is a done deal. It is just a matter of when you announce it. It will either be by the end of the year or before the next sittings in late November.
You have no mandate to do this. It is interesting for me. I was elected in 2012. I remember when coming into this parliament, the first person I shook hands with was the then elected Chief Minister, Terry Mills. What takes me back now is how they campaigned against the member for Nelson. They brought Territorians along with them to say to Labor at the time, ‘We do not want our public asset sold’.
The Terry Mills story – the former member for Blain, the former elected Chief Minister – has been told the book has closed and he is in Jakarta somewhere. We are not entirely sure how much he is paid, or what he is doing there, because we have not had a report or heard something in parliament about what he is achieving, or if he is achieving anything there. It takes you back to how this government is running things.
It rams legislation through parliament just because it has the numbers. As I said many times in this parliament, because you have the numbers and you can do it does not mean you should. You are supposed to represent all Territorians and the best interests of Territorians, not the best interests of you and individual situations. It is, ‘Let us just look after us! What can we get out of this deal? How can we do this?’
Now after two years, halfway through this term of government, everybody is starting to focus on the 2016 campaign. I hope, member for Sanderson, you are doing a lot of work in your electorate, because you will struggle to maintain your 3% margin, I think it was, to be re-elected. I hope you are doing well. If you sell TIO you will know. I am sure people are coming to your office, and the offices of everybody else on that side, saying, ‘Do not sell it. Why do we have to sell it? Why are you selling it? This is our public asset.’
You want a mature discussion, well how about a mature government? Get down to governing for Territorians, not governing for yourselves …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request an extension of 10 minutes for my colleague.
Motion agreed to.
Mr VOWLES: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, and member for Nhulunbuy.
Let us have a mature discussion about the sale of the TIO asset, which is a shame. I and Territorians hope you can be a mature government. You are not being one. You are looking after yourselves and making decisions that do not make sense. People are bombarding our offices. The new member for Casuarina is already finding people are coming to her, contacting her on Facebook, e-mails, any way they can, and asking what this government is doing.
We have thousands of people leaving the Territory because you guys promised to lower the cost of living and it is through the roof. How are we supposed to survive? Let us be honest, we in this Chamber are on very good wages and the ministers in Cabinet are on exceptional wages. But you cringe like I cringe every time that power bill comes in, and now the water bill is through the roof. Families will struggle over the Christmas and new year periods. Those families – the mums and dads with school-aged children – after the January holidays have to buy books and shoes, because the kids have grown, and get everything needed to be ready for school. It will be a struggle.
If you sell TIO our insurance premiums will go through the roof and that will further impact on the cost-of-living pressures for our mums and dads in the Northern Territory.
Mr Deputy Speaker, let us call it what it is: this is a cash grab for your election commitments and your war chest of money you can splash around and pay off the communities with the promises you made that are not on any books we know of. They contracts Terry Mills signed with communities are in my drawer. I have kept them and might frame them to show what a joke they were. I feel sorry for people in remote regions of the Northern Territory, and Territorians who were conned and scammed and are continually let down by this bad government.
Mr BARRETT (Blain): Mr Deputy Speaker, that would have been a very entertaining speech had it not been on such a serious topic. I have listened carefully to many things said in this House on this issue and it seems three things are happening in regard to the debate coming from across …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can you take that discussion outside please, member for Johnston.
Mr Elferink: I am trying to, Mr Deputy Speaker but he will not move. He is too much of a coward.
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker!
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That was a bit uncalled for, Leader of Government Business. That should be withdrawn.
Mr Vowles: Did you just offer to go outside?
Mr Elferink: No, I said go out the back and we will talk about the issue you have like gentlemen. That is what I have been trying to do, but you are refusing to. I cannot help it if you live in this world of paranoia …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: These discussions …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! This is not a point of order.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I have silence please. These discussions definitely need to be taken outside. They should not take place here during debate about TIO. The member for Blain has the floor and he can continue.
Mr BARRETT: Mr Deputy Speaker, the first argument they opposition came up with was about market failure, the second was about the effect on people and the third was about the notion of a cash grab. I will frame the arguments so I can box them in place where they need to be; they are mostly irrelevant.
I address first the notion of market failure. A market failure in economic terms has a specific definition. You cannot talk about a market failure every time something is more expensive than you think it should be. Where a market exists and where that market is operating in an efficient manner, no market failure exists.
A market failure may exist in the notion of a Defence Force. We are, as the member for Johnston pointed out, not on bad wages, but I do not know if there is anybody in this Chamber who could afford to buy an F/A-18 Hornet or a tank. We are unable to do that at an individual level. We collectively understand this is a product we need. Because we need this product, we combine together and create a system where we are taxed to pay for it.
It is the opinion of this government that often when a market failure does not exist it becomes apparent the government does not have a place being in the market. If we look historically at the way governments have tried to intervene in efficient markets, they invariably do a bad job of it.
If we look at a market failure, we are looking at a circumstance where there are many players in this market, which was not the case when this was set up. Those organisations act in a very efficient manner and offer a complete and comprehensive level of service to the community in all levels of insurance available, whether that be life insurance or anything else.
The reasoning, ‘You cannot do this because someone’s premiums will or will not go up’ is not a valid argument in light of the fact there is an market operating that will efficiently price risk according to actuarial data.
The second issue they raised is the effect this will have on people. The elephant in the room the opposition and the member for Nelson are failing to pick up on is that you do not spend a lot of money buying a brand to then ruin it.
When I worked in the finance industry, the finance company I worked for bought another finance company. When we bought that finance company, we worked very hard with that client base because we had bought a book. We worked incredibly hard with that client base to make sure they were getting not just the level of service they were used to, but a level of service that meant they would not just stay but we would be able to build through that network, that book of clients, a larger and greater client base. The synergies that existed between the two firms could now consolidate a profit where the two firms would be greater as one entity.
Much of the information regarding the effect on people is not grounded on anything factual. It is, for lack of a better word, scaremongering. They are assuming some things will happen and are being very noisy about their assumptions, but those assumptions may or may not happen.
The third thing is this notion of a cash grab. I echo what the member for Katherine spoke about in relation to this. It is very important for the opposition to understand this. We on this side of the Chamber understand this is a sensitive issue. We understand many people in our electorates, as yours, will be concerned about this, ‘Where is this going? What will happen?’ Believe me when I say to you, I, like the member for Katherine, would not be supporting this or a mature discussion on this, if we wanted to randomly grab cash.
If you want to look at a cash grab, let us look at the cash grab while Labor was in government when they took debt to state product up to 98%, an amount that would make Spain blush in the middle of the global financial crisis. Had it not been for the fact the federal government is backing us with a AAA rating, as an economy we would be in a lot of trouble right now. It is somewhat hypocritical for members opposite to talk about us performing a cash grab when they went for every ounce of what they could drag out of the Northern Territory’s cash flow in debt. They clocked that onto our liabilities register, which this government is having to work through. I am happy to say it is doing a good job on that.
On other issues, first of all, some information came to light today about the fund that existed in the federal government between 2003 and 2009. Individual states could apply for money for mitigation. Not one application was made to mitigate floods in Katherine or Rapid Creek. The member for Johnston talked about the good people of Millner needing something done. At what point did the Labor government, when they had a federal bucket of money to deal with this, do anything about it? There was not a point. They put very few applications in and the applications that went in only went to fire damage control. There was nothing covering floods. Looking at all of this on a holistic level, the information coming across the floor is somewhat shallow.
The challenges facing TIO and the Northern Territory community are centred around floods, storm surge and damage most likely associated with cyclones. TIO policyholders are underwritten by taxpayers of the Northern Territory, that is, the Northern Territory government and, therefore, taxpayers. We as a group, the NT and taxpayers, will pay any shortfall in funds to policyholders if there is a major disaster.
Because of this, the Northern Territory government is particularly interested in a draft report by the Australian government’s Productivity Commission into natural disaster funding which was released in September this year. This is a very complex issue, but one that is important for the opposition to understand. The scope of the Productivity Commission inquiry included:
1. the sustainability and effectiveness of current arrangements for funding natural disaster mitigation, resilience and recovery initiatives, including – where directly relevant to an improved funding model – the management of disaster relief and recovery;
The Productivity Commission’s key points in its draft findings say:
There are anecdotes that abound that talk of the inefficiencies in the way funds have been spent under these circumstances:
Lastly from the report:
As you can see, the Productivity Commission is looking at changing the management of natural disaster risk for the whole of Australia.
The opposition likes to quote Terry Mills and talk about things that happened more than six years ago. But the reality is that things have moved on. The way the federal government is looking at funding natural disasters in this country has changed. Natural disasters are an inherent part of the Australian landscape:
This has affected the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of Australians.
These natural disasters have also had significant financial impact on Australian state, territory and local governments. Over the past decade, the Australian government has spent $8bn on post-disaster relief and recovery, with another $5.7bn to be spent over the forward estimates for past natural disaster events. State and territory governments have spent a further $5.6bn on relief and recovery over the past decade. The Productivity Commission data shows that since 1970 the cost of cyclones and floods in the Northern Territory has totalled $1.66bn.
The economic costs of natural disasters are difficult to measure. A recent estimate by Deloitte Access Economics puts the total economic cost of natural disasters at $6.3bn a year.
It is very important to understand a bit about the NDRRA. There are some thresholds:
The Northern Territory government is continuing work with the federal government on these important matters. If I explain this with an example people might see how important this is. Because the Northern Territory government is a co-insurer with TIO, we are in a circumstance where if there was, say, $1bn of loss, as co-insurer to the value of half of the value of the private insurance policies, the Northern Territory government is up for $500m just to cover private insurance policies.
That $500m going into private policies does not trigger any of these amounts from the NDRRA that could come to the state for disaster relief. Effectively, the Northern Territory government, due to the fact it is hanging on to the reinsurance part of the TIO, is in the can, effectively, for half of whatever needs to be paid for, plus whatever reconstruction needs to occur on our own assets because we self-insure. In addition, we are also in a situation where we have to go past these trigger points …
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker? Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I seek an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Mr BARRETT: We are up for an awful lot of money that needs to go to reconstruction should a major disaster event occur.
The federal government may not assist at a level we might expect due to our exposure in TIO. I go again to these requirements, because everyone was asleep:
It is a requirement we have access to capital to provide our own disaster relief outside of the funds that need to go, as our co-insurance option, to the Territory Insurance Office.
With our insurance arrangements we are, effectively, insuring ourselves, which means half the value of whatever policies we need to pay out is money we cannot spend in insurance for Northern Territory government assets.
Because we are having to put funds into this, at what point are we looking at mitigation strategies? It has already been demonstrated that even when a federal funding pool existed for the Northern Territory to apply for and obtain mitigation funding, the previous Labor government of the Northern Territory failed to do so.
Talking about the price of insurance, whose fault is it if insurance is high in the Rapid Creek and Katherine areas, given that no attempt was made for mitigation? This is a shame. It is something the opposition need to think very carefully about before they start throwing slurs across the Chamber at us.
In light of all this, I close by saying there were some very valid reasons why the TIO was set up in the first place. There are some very valid reasons why now is a good time to release TIO, not least of which is it will help in working with this NDRRA initiative through the federal government and putting us in a situation where we are not at so much risk due to the risk we are carrying through TIO, rendering us unable to respond effectively in a time of crisis in the Northern Territory.
I recommend that the members opposite in the House consider such things carefully and not be quite so shallow in their assessments of us by putting arguments that this market is in a failure position. I refute that strongly. This market is not in a market failure position. Their argument is quite shallow and will affect people.
The rebuttal to their other argument is, if a company acquires the Territory Insurance Office, why would they wreck it? Why would they destroy the client base they have just purchased?
Mr Deputy Speaker, their third one-dimensional shallow argument is this a cash grab. Do you really think we would put ourselves at such political risk? We are doing this for good reasons and those reasons need to be considered by members on the other side of the Chamber.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim ): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for bringing on this motion. Selling TIO is something that has been close to my heart for some time. It is necessary. It is ludicrous that the Northern Territory has so much money tied up in one asset when we should be using that money to provide infrastructure and other things to drive the Territory forward, particularly when there is an enormous number of companies which see government competing with them and are very keen to buy that asset from government. I will get back on to TIO in a minute.
It was interesting listening to comments from the other side. Something those members opposite might find of some interest is that two of the greatest political leaders, in my view, this country has ever seen were Bob Hawke and Paul Keating. What they did in government was stunning at a national level, and they were very reformist in the way they changed Australia forever.
Hawke and Keating floated the Australian dollar, deregulated the banking industry and introduced compulsory superannuation. Those three things were massive for Australia at the time. Floating the dollar was a big thing to do. It meant government took its hands off the levers of monetary control and allowed it to operate as a global currency. Deregulating the banks was allowing foreign banks into Australia. Think back to the times when Hawke and Keating did this. Deregulating the banking industry and allowing foreign banks to come into Australia was a bold move at the time and did not meet with a lot of thanks from many of their Labor colleagues. Compulsory superannuation was another struggle Hawke and Keating involved themselves in, but it did set up Australia’s savings regime. Fortunately for us now, Bob Hawke and Paul Keating were keen to introduce compulsory superannuation. We now we have a savings base in the Australian population that never existed in the past.
Hawke and Keating also privatised the Commonwealth Bank, Qantas and Telstra ...
Mr Elferink: Keating was a much better Liberal than Fraser.
Mr TOLLNER: In many regards. It is no wonder Bob Hawke and Paul Keating are now luminaries of the Labor Party. Not only were they both Prime Ministers of Australia – I do not care which political party you come from, if you reach the dizzy heights of Prime Minister, you deserve some respect simply for getting to that position.
Hawke and Keating obviously were not happy just to get to the position of Prime Minister. Both wanted to leave their mark on Australia and set Australia up as a world market-leading economy.
Once you have deregulated the banking industry, what is the point of owning a bank? Hence, Mr Keating’s desire and ultimate achievement in privatising the Commonwealth Bank. It was similar with Qantas. There is a range of airlines in Australia, so why would government be in the business of competing with business? Qantas was privatised. Then they started the privatisation of Telstra.
I have often said I grew up in a post office back in the days of the PMG, the Postmaster-General. When I was a young kid, no one wanted to be involved in telecommunications in Australia. It was the government that kick-started telecommunications across Australia through the PMG. Of course, over a period of 40-odd years, competition crept into the market with other players, to the point there are literally thousands of companies in Australia operating telecommunication businesses. Why should Australia own a company that competes with those owned by private business? It gives them an unfair advantage.
Look around Australia and you see what Labor governments have done. They have privatised tramways, nursing homes, prisons – goodness me, they have even lotteries. Labor truly is the party for privatisation, without a doubt.
A few months ago, I was at a Treasurers’ meeting in Canberra when Joe Hockey first raised the asset renewal process. The Commonwealth has put a 15% bonus on the table for asset sales. They understand it is extraordinarily difficult for governments, irrespective of their political persuasion, to privatise things, so he put a 15% incentive in place.
It was an interesting meeting, because, instantly, the Treasurer from South Australia, Tom Koutsantonis – although he is a Labor man, I greatly admire him as he is a lovely bloke who seems to be quite switched on to a range of things – said, ‘Mr Hockey, this is all wrong. You cannot do this. It is unfair to South Australia because we have sold everything there is to sell. We are being penalised because we have privatised everything already.’
When you come to the Northern Territory, you would swear this was the Labor Party of 60 years ago. It is not a modern Labor Party, but one from a bygone era. It is opposed to privatisations and is all for the worker, propping them and using taxpayer money to fund jobs. In many regards, that is what it is about.
I remember in the 2013-14 budget, the then member for Casuarina, Mr Kon Vatskalis, said, ‘Of course we had to go into debt. How else were we to pay teachers, nurses and doctors?’ Labor has a view that it is up to the taxpayer, and if the taxpayer cannot afford it, we have to go into debt to pay wages. That is a big no-no generally in economic terms, but it seems to be okay for the Labor Party here. It does not care that we need to go into further debt to fund vital infrastructure to see the growth of the Territory.
It is rather sad that this Labor Party in the Northern Territory is so out of touch. In fact, I do not think it is out of touch, it is just playing cheapjack politics because 10 years ago it tried to sell what is on the table now. They have had a change of heart. They have decided it is in their political interest now to be seen to oppose this.
Interestingly enough, walking around the community, I have not heard too many people say to me that we should not be selling TIO. Most people realise that TIO is the last standing government owned insurance business in Australia, which has some major problems, and unless it can diversify its risk somewhat further, it will create problems for us into the future. Most Territorians want to see the Territory economy grow and prosper. They understand money needs to be provided for infrastructure to do that. Going further into debt or increasing taxes further is not a good way of doing that, particularly when we have so much latent cash tied up in an insurance business that competes with other businesses that operate in the Northern Territory.
When TIO was first created, there was a lack of insurance products in the Northern Territory. People found it very difficult to get insurance. The government of the day saw a need to step in and provide what the market was unwilling to provide, very similar to how the Postmaster General’s Office was set up and our telecommunications network in Australia was first kicked off – because there was a lack of interest in the private sector to build the wires and the communication devices needed to put in place a communication system across Australia. Government saw the need to provide that service.
Obviously now, some 40-odd years since the instigation of TIO, we have a deep market. There is a number of companies you can buy insurance products from in the Northern Territory. Those companies, I do not think, are that thrilled they are competing in the marketplace against a government owned institution.
Many speakers have outlined the problems with TIO. I have worked for some time in insurance over the years, and have a limited understanding of the business. I am no great expert, but I have an understanding of how insurance companies operate. Fundamentally, in the insurance world, bigger is better. It is not being big for the sake of being big, it is the benefits that size brings to an insurance company which allow insurance companies to diversify their risk. Over the last several decades we have seen an amalgamation of insurance businesses across the world because of the benefit that size brings. It is a very simple argument. It is about not putting all your eggs in one basket and making sure you have all bases covered.
The problem TIO has, of course, is that about 90% of its product is in the Northern Territory and 90% of that product is in the northern suburbs of Darwin. It cannot really diversify its holdings unless it tries to expand its business interstate and overseas. Whilst it sounds good to say, yes, we can have a government owned insurance business that is possibly one day truly global, the time and effort of getting there is beyond the wit of parliaments and governments. It is something that is better left to private enterprise. Governments should not be in the business of trying to compete in a global nature with private enterprise.
If we continue to head down this path, what it might mean for the Territory is – touch wood – if we have a major disaster not just the Territory Insurance Office is exposed, but the Northern Territory government and, through government, the people of the Northern Territory.
It is interesting to say, ‘TIO was the only insurer to pay out for the Katherine floods’. The Katherine floods were an isolated event. Goodness me, if we had another Cyclone Tracy hit Darwin and a large percentage of houses are knocked over, major infrastructure damaged and the like, it is very concerning that TIO would have some difficulty paying out all claims without the backing of government to provide more resourcing to make sure all claims are paid. This is why it is important to have a diversified portfolio: to make sure TIO can get reinsurance and can diversify its risk and not have all its eggs tied up in one basket.
I heard talk that TIO could be worth about $0.5bn. If that is true, it is the right time to sell the Territory Insurance Office. I note last year was the first year in a long time it made a profit. The member for Johnston seems to think the best time to sell an asset is when it is losing money. I do not know whether that is standard thinking across the opposition, but the best time to sell it is the time when you can maximise the price you will get for it. Now seems as good a time as any. My view is it should have been sold in 2005 when Labor first suggested it, but they had no mandate from the board. The board was opposed to it. Now the board is for it and it is probably a better time to look at selling.
I am supportive of the sale of the Territory Insurance Office. It is high time we liberated the capital Territorians have tied up in that organisation and allow it to be used to develop and grow the north. Now is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. The federal government is focused on northern development. The Territory government, along with Queensland and Western Australia, is also focused on developing the north. Now is the time to look to recycle assets. Now is the time to look at the types of infrastructure we need and do some serious hard thinking about the Territory we want to live in in 10 years’ time. It is not just Australia that is focused on north Australia, but all those countries in our region.
The Chief Minister is aware of the focus on the Northern Territory. He has done enough overseas travel. He has met enough people from interstate and around the world to know there is a large focus on the north and now is the time not to be dilly-dallying, but to be working to grow the north.
I again thank the Chief Minister for introducing this motion. It is wonderful to see a government with the intestinal fortitude to make big decisions. For so long we have watched benign governments full of people who are scared of their own shadows who would not even consider doing this. It is fantastic that the Northern Territory has a leader who is prepared to lead, make the tough calls for the benefit of the Northern Territory and take on the naysayers on the other side.
The Labor Party is the party of privatisation in Australia. It privatised the Commonwealth Bank, Qantas, Telstra, lotteries, tramways, nursing homes and prisons. There is practically nothing Labor has not privatised anywhere in the country. As Tom Koutsantonis in South Australia said – and that Labor government has been there for more than a decade now – it is not fair for them because Labor has already sold everything it can possibly sell.
The reason Labor members here are jacking up about this is simple. They are doing it for cheapjack political points. They know it, we know it.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, that is why the Chief Minister has called a mature discussion about it. He does not want to see cheapjack politics involved, he wants to see a proper debate to try to extract from Territorians what it is we can use all of this liberated money for that will see the development and growth of north Australia.
Ms MOSS (Casuarina): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this motion and the amendment introduced by the member for Nelson that all matters relating to the future sale of TIO are scrutinised by the Public Accounts Committee. This is an amendment I support. This discussion is too important for the Territory not to support it. I reinforce what my colleagues have said today; we do not want to see TIO sold.
Over the course of these sittings it has been interesting to watch the changing nature of the conversation about the sale of TIO. Last night we heard the Chief Minister say:
What a difference a week makes. Tonight the member for Sanderson said the MAC Scheme will not be sold. Members on this side of the Chamber and Territorians will appreciate hearing exactly what your plans are for TIO.
The Chief Minister has made reference on a number of occasions about wanting to have a mature debate about the sale of TIO. Apparently a mature debate does not include taking one simple question to Territorians: do you want the TIO to be sold? The Chief Minister talked about issues at TIO that need to be addressed. However, rather than suggesting alternatives or discussing some of the alternatives raised today and genuinely including the views of Territorians, the government shoots through to a sale hoping this incentive of submitting a wish list will placate those who disagree with the sale. Consultation is a two-way process. There is significant objection to the sale of TIO already, without the government taking that decision to Territorians.
Today we have heard a range of analogies from a beaten up car, to paper notes and plastic notes. We are talking about a public asset that is important to Territorians.
Over the last few months we had petitions on a stall at Casuarina Square calling on the government to rule out the sale of TIO and this petition has been very popular. People have sought us out to sign that petition. The same petition has been outside the offices of many of my colleagues. Again, Territorians have been taking this opportunity to speak out against the sale of TIO. Businesses and TIO customers are approaching their local members. In fact, the first constituent through my door last week was somebody wanting to talk about TIO.
While doorknocking at Casuarina, a number of people raised this issue with me, wanting TIO to remain where it belongs as a public asset, and for us to fight for it. Member for Blain, if you can see this is a sensitive issue with Territorians, then I hope you will be lobbying your colleagues to take this to Territorians and have a proper discussion with them.
The CLP government did not come clean with Territorians about seeking final offers for TIO during the by-election when these issues were raised. People would have been more than happy to discuss their concerns with you and give you their views on this decision had they been given the chance. It is disingenuous to claim that the CLP government wants a mature conversation about this issue when the first step is to put the question to Territorians about whether or not they want the sale to go ahead.
Perhaps the government is fearful that the answer will not be the one they are looking for – the one that matches the actions that seem to have been taking place behind the scenes. Perhaps that is why the government is encouraging the public to embark on putting forward ideas for spending profits made from selling TIO, with no option for providing a view on the sale.
Last week, we learned the government was talking about the sale of this public asset as early as March. This evening, the member for Katherine talked about the need for governments to make urgent decisions. Of course this is true, but if we believe what has been said in these sittings, the sale of TIO has been talked about without Territorians for at least six months. At no point since March has the government seen fit to hold a genuine conversation with Territorians about the sale of this asset – not about spending the profits of a hypothetical sale, which is apparently becoming more real by the minute, but the actual sale. I appeal to the government again to take it to the people. You have the time and the means to put this decision to Territorians, but it seems the decision has already been made.
A call for genuine consultation is not a matter of sentiment; it is a matter of valuing the voices of a huge number of Territorians who want to voice their concerns about this potential sale, and who, as my colleague the member for Fannie Bay quite rightly said, have built trust based on experience. In the TIO’s Annual Financial Report 2013-14, the Chief Executive, Richard Harding said:
It would not be right to debate this without continuing to raise the fact that Territorians should be given a genuine say in this conversation. People are concerned about a number of aspects of a potential sale of TIO. They want to continue to access their banking services locally and to know their insurer will not only continue to pay out in the event of cyclone or flooding, but will pay out quickly if that was to occur. They are concerned about the jobs of Territorians providing those services and keeping the Territory Insurance Office simply that.
Public assets sold in other states and territories have shown us these things are at risk. When the devastating floods occurred in Queensland there were significant cases where payouts were slow to be issued, flood victims found themselves paying much more than they expected or, worse still, were not adequately covered. The government continues to tell us about the number of insurers that offer cyclone and flood coverage – which is fantastic for Territorians – and how important it has been for us to have TIO offering these products, ensuring that other insurers must offer them to be able to compete in the Territory market. In these circumstances, this is about people being able to put their lives back together and getting back on track quickly.
The Leader of the Opposition shared with us the important support TIO provides this community through partnership, with sponsorship of a large range of community services and initiatives, from CareFlight to DriveSafe NT. I will mention a couple more.
Employees from TIO volunteer a huge amount of time to the initiative Party Safe at a range of the Northern Territory’s major events. Their efforts create a dialogue about reducing risks when drinking, done in their own time at some of the biggest events in the Northern Territory.
TIO also supports the pinnacle event on the National Youth Week calendar, the Young Achiever Awards. This is an incredibly important evening in recognising the contributions of young people in their workplaces, in leadership, in their communities, on the sports field, as young carers and more. TIO has many young employees, and a number of my peers have gone on to increase their contribution as a result of being recognised at these awards. This is because TIO is not just an insurance office or another business run by a multinational company, it is local. TIO is part of this community, and that is part of the strength of its brand.
If a decision is made to sell TIO and this sale, as the Chief Minister put it, moves extremely quickly, there are still many questions looming about the security of these initiatives and this support for our community.
I am glad the member for Nelson talked about TIO employees, as I will too. For a moment, I invite those on the other side of the Chamber to imagine what this must be like for those working across the road at TIO this week. Conversations are being held here about the future of the organisation they work for. One day the Chief Minister said no decision had been made about the sale, the next that the government is at the final stage of seeking offers. This must be a time of incredible uncertainty and stress for them. As stated in the chairman’s report in TIO’s 2013-14 annual report:
If the CLP government is at the stage of looking at final offers, what support and safeguards are in place for them into the future? How will change be managed to ensure their jobs are secure? Let us not forget that when we sell a public asset to a business, it becomes purely an asset for making a profit.
Territorians are already feeling the pressure of the increased cost of living. As mentioned previously by my colleagues, there are many major stakeholders who do not agree with this sale. Let us not put Territorians in a position of having to choose now what to go without to cover themselves in the event of a natural disaster. The Northern Territory is at real risk of cyclone and flood. The potential for Territorians and businesses to be left vulnerable by making the wrong decision in this case is real, so be up front with Territorians about your plans.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I join the call for the government to stop rushing through this decision to sell a major asset and to have, in the Chief Minister’s own words, a mature conversation with Territorians about whether they want it sold.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will summarise a bit of what was said in relation to the potential sale of TIO going to a Public Accounts Committee.
Perhaps I should go back a little for those who knocked that idea – and a number of people did – and say part of the reason was it was a halfway point to getting the public involved. I would prefer the government to have some face-to-face meetings with the public to put its arguments. The government has put some very good arguments which I can understand; I am not silly.
I walked down the street today past Uncle Sam’s. I was not eating there today. The first thing the bloke said to me was, ‘Do not sell TIO’. That is the impression I am getting from many people I meet. I met someone outside the Westpac Bank this afternoon when I went to the ATM, ‘Do not let them sell TIO’. I did not even know the gentleman.
I am saying the government needs to talk to the people is because they are not with you on this. If you will not do that, then one of the alternatives is to go through a bipartisan Public Accounts Committee which could go out to the people. That committee has government members on it who can put forward the policy of the government. Other people on that Public Accounts Committee could also question and put forward other ideas ...
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, I have been advised by the Clerk that you do not get to talk on this. I have been advised that he advised you of that. I have made a mistake, so I will give you one minute to sum up, then I will hand over to the Chief Minister.
Mr WOOD: That is fine. I apologise to the Chief Minister, I was not trying to butt in. I was given advice by the Speaker that I could respond to the amendment.
Mr Giles: I was out of the room, I missed the conversation, sorry.
Mr WOOD: I have just been told I cannot in mid-stream. Quickly then. Thank you for the one minute.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: My pleasure.
Mr WOOD: I put it to the government this way; the PAC is body which could scrutinise for the people what the government is suggesting. I do not have a problem with that. I am saying that in this debate, the people have missed out. As I said, people came to me and said, ‘Do not sell TIO’. I do not know some of those people.
The government has not relayed its message. If it believes it has a good message, why is the Chamber of Commerce saying, ‘We do not agree with this’? Even though you might have a good argument, you are not selling that argument. That is where it falls down. The government knocks me about trying to get the PAC to look at it. I do not think it is willing to talk to people on the ground. This was an opportunity to have a bipartisan group talk to people to see what they thought because they have been left out of the conversation.
Mr Deputy Speaker, as for the member for Katherine’s comment about calling for committee inquiries all the time, your government just appointed me to the fuel pricing committee.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Do I take it that you do not want to be part of the fuel pricing committee?
Mr Wood: No, I did not say that. He said I am all about committees; I am happy to be.
Mr GILES: A committee is needed where it is warranted and can provide good analysis.
I have explained why things have to move quickly in a situation like this. I just heard the member for Casuarina say that she supports the PAC and also supports employees not being left in limbo. I have said employees are one of the three main things under consideration through this process. If you went slowly on a sale process you would have enormous financial ramifications for government because depositors would pull their money out and it would create a massive liquidity risk for TIO, particularly from a banking perspective. Also, if you went until 1 June, or any other period of time, employees would be in limbo for that period.
We will not be supporting the amendment.
Thank you to members for a considered debate on this important issue. I seek to address some of the issues raised by members.
There was a comment on pricing. In an area like cyclone cover, TIO is no longer the cheapest. Its prices usually sit at the middle of the market. There are concerns about the increases in prices in Queensland and a belief that could happen here; however, it is a fear not based on fact. There is a very simple reason why insurance is cheaper here and why prices will not skyrocket as they have in Queensland. It is the nature of the underwriting risk. Anyone who understands the insurance industry knows that. I am happy to explain.
North Queensland’s exposure to highly intense cyclones and large catastrophic insurance losses is significantly higher than in the Territory. It has a very long east-facing coastline exposed to cyclone which is home to numerous cities and towns, which means it has a much greater level of risk to insurers. It can be seen by the size of losses arising from Cyclones Yasi and Larry, which were in excessive of $1bn each. We do not have the level of infrastructure here – the resorts, the big hotels, the high-rises or the population.
In addition, the Territory’s Building Code is significantly stronger than Queensland’s, coming into effect earlier as a result of Cyclone Tracy and 90% of Darwin being rebuilt to cyclone code. The vast majority of the Territory’s building stock has been built to that stronger code. This is not the case in Queensland, where many of the buildings are much older than before the code came in. Simply, TIO has said if it was to cover north Queensland the premiums would still be exactly the same.
Regardless of who owns TIO in the future, pricing for flood cover is a difficult issue. Let us not mince words, it is a challenge. We know that prices will increase substantially in many parts of the Territory under the current structure. TIO has already said it is examining how it should price flood cover into the future in light of significant increases in global reinsurance costs and developments in flood insurance nationally. Prices in many parts of the Northern Territory will go up exponentially under TIO because of the change in the risk profile.
Flood is a concern around Australia and all governments are dealing with this. It is a cost blow-out but it is about rebalancing the risk. It is an issue the Territory will need to confront, whether TIO is retained under government ownership or not. That is why we talk about realising asset value in TIO and putting it into flood mitigation strategies to help put downward pressure on insurance policy pricing into the future.
People in high-risk flood zones are incurring higher cost due to that risk. Since the Queensland floods in 2011, the insurance market has been focused on pricing flood risk at its true cost, driven by the Commonwealth government’s implementation of common definition of ‘flood’ and the release of the National Flood Information Database, coordinated by the previous federal government.
The issue being addressed across all markets is how governments can impact affordability through a suitable partnership with the insurance industry on mitigation. That is where we want to put much of the TIO revenue, should it be sold.
The recent Productivity Commission report recommends that governments focus on a combined strategy of short-term subsidy and long-term mitigation actions, which is where we are looking.
Flood insurance costs in Katherine are not an issue that relate to TIO’s ownership. It does not matter in Katherine if TIO is owned by government. There are issues about the appropriate cost for the risk and how the risk profile is being put into Katherine, and will be put into the storm surge areas in the northern suburbs in Darwin. We have to act before these things occur to help provide future downward pressure on what will be an escalating pricing system across all insurance agencies.
The government will continue to work with TIO regardless of who its owner is in the future, to try to address reducing risk for flood and storm surge and storm water mitigation. It is a challenge. Infrastructure solutions can help present a response to that challenge. Identifying the resources to do that is important and is part of the move to help TIO become more competitive into the future. Its sale would also realise some money to put into flood mitigation which would help put downward pressure on premiums.
The TIO was originally established as no insurers were offering workers compensation cover in the Territory. There was a good reason for it to be owned by government because most commercial insurers and many of the banks did not have an interest in the Territory.
However, the Territory has come of age in those 35 years and now we see a range of insurers here. We have built a community and industries that attract global businesses. They want to be here as they see our potential. This is reflected in the fact that over the past five years the unemployment rate in the Territory has sat under 2%. Our population has grown. In 1979, our population was just 100 000, now it is 250 000 people. Then, our budget was $500m, now it is $5bn and above.
The growth in the Territory and the maturing of our industries is especially clear in the area of insurance. Today we have 12 insurers competing across the Territory and all offer cyclone cover, and only one does not provide flood cover.
Opening up the market by releasing TIO will see more competition in this market. Long gone are the days when Territorians could not get cover. Now we have a highly-competitive growing market that will grow more when we release TIO. Regardless of TIO’s ownership structure, Territorians will continue to have access to the insurance policies they now have.
A couple of the points made by the opposition were fairly decent questions and I have responses.
The question of nationals and multinationals misses the point that they can have access to economies of scale and a better place to diversify risk. TIO prices risk for pre-cyclone homes on the same basis as other insurers, and it will be more location based into the future. Hence the reason some premiums will go up.
The manager of the MAC Scheme will need to comply with claims about performance standards in the management contract, and attendance care benefits established in any legislation that comes through for the sale. The MAC manager will be overseen by a MAC commission which will monitor the management of the scheme on behalf of government.
MAC will be maintained as government owned. Things like CareFlight and its sponsorship will be maintained, as it is a MAC initiative rather than a commercial insurance initiative. The DriveSafe NT Remote program will stay because it is funded by the MAC Scheme, not by the insurance component. MAC will remain a public asset and will not be sold, just the management will be outsourced. Schemes that are sponsored by MAC will all be retained.
In response to a point made about the National Partnership Agreement on Asset Recycling, every state and territory jurisdiction, including the two Labor jurisdictions of South Australia and the ACT, signed up to the NPA in COAG about six months ago.
In response to some of the member for Nelson’s comments, insurance markets are more complex since 2006. Major disasters have affected reinsurance markets. Combined with technological developments, disaster cover is priced on a more sophisticated basis, providing for more effective diversification. TIO has limited capacity to exploit these benefits; capital markets are also more global. I add that if TIO fully reinsured, prices would put many of TIO’s policies out of the reach of many Territorians. That is a challenge.
Any expansion of TIO’s operations outside of the Northern Territory or partnering with another insurer will increase the government’s risk exposure under the guarantee. I note some Labor members called for TIO to be allowed to expand interstate and that the NT government should financially back those policies. That is an outrageous claim. That would put tens of billions of dollars of debt on to the NT government’s books. I am not sure who said that. I hope it was not the shadow Treasurer, whoever that is, because that would be a financial disaster.
Member for Nelson, I did not hear you say this, but I have notes here that say you spoke about the option of a public float where Territorians could buy shares. That was something I raised that was interesting. Many years ago, I think it was AMP and NRMA, both publicly listed through an initial public offering. That was an opportunity for TIO, but the advice I received was that given the size of TIO and its capitalisation opportunities, it would not raise the right amount of funds. It may be able to return a very slight benefit to Territorians, but the time line of how long it would stay a public company on a stock exchange would not be long as it would be sucked up by other insurance bodies because of the same issues being faced now by the Northern Territory government. They would not have the capital to expand. It was investigated, but the advice was it could not be done.
You made comments, member for Nelson, about Indigenous communities being insured. One thing to remember is the majority of assets in Aboriginal communities are federal or Territory government assets which are self-insured. Government owns them, so if anything happens government pays for them again, rather than having insurance. Second, the shire councils that operate with assets operate in a competitive environment. They go out for tender or RFP. I am advised there has been an appointed broker by the name of Jardine Fleming, which places its business into the competitive insurance market. I do not know who it insures with, but the company goes to market on a competitive basis, just like anybody else.
We heard comments today about cyclone mitigation programs. I think the member for Katherine raised the issue about what happened between 2001 and 2009. There was a federal government program. I understand every state and territory jurisdiction applied for funding under that flood mitigation program to allow for ameliorating some of the risk. Katherine would have been a perfect place, as would Rapid Creek – for the member of Johnston – or any of the storm surge areas throughout the northern suburbs. The previous Territory Labor government did not put an application in for any of those funds to remove any flood risk in the Northern Territory. That is a missed opportunity; the program closed in 2009.
We also heard today that the federal government, through the Productivity Commission, is considering changing the national natural disaster scheme. We need to plan for these changes, not just sit around navel-gazing. They want to see investment in flood mitigation to reduce risk in the medium to longer term. The previous Territory government looked at supporting this initiative; we have supported it in government. That means we must act now before disasters occur and lower the level of risk, or the impact of that risk, should events occur, whether by acts of God or otherwise.
There was a comment made by the opposition that TIO should continue because of market failure. There is no market failure in the Northern Territory. There is a robust insurance industry which is competitive, sustainable and based on the best formula from around the world on how risk is managed. The challenge we have is that TIO is too small to compete in that environment against those global players who have access to capital.
I also have another note about how Labor wanted to underwrite insurance policies in north Queensland and Western Australia. That is fiscally irresponsible. I call on whoever said that to denounce that commentary because that would put the Territory in ruins.
Imagine if TIO was insuring people in Cairns and they had a cyclone and it cost $1bn, well above our reinsurance amount. Where would we be then? We would send the Territory broke because you insured in Cairns. That is completely irresponsible of whoever made those comments. The opposition members again demonstrate they do not really understand markets or the economy, particularly the insurance market.
Talking about a competitive environment in the Territory from an insurance point of view – we are not talking about the banking issues at the moment – there is competitive market and a well-indicated lack of interest from some insurance companies to want to enter the Territory market (1) because it is small and (2) because they are competing against a government-backed insurance agency. It is not considered to be a level playing field despite the fact that TIO operates on a commercial basis. Freeing up TIO should increase competition in the Northern Territory.
There is a range of other smaller matters I have the opportunity of talking about, but they have been raised in a number of other responses. I will get back to the points about investing in flood, storm surge and storm water mitigation, the asset recycling component and the establishment of the infrastructure future fund, for which a name is still being determined.
The idea of an infrastructure future fund is to put aside money for future investment in economic initiatives from the proceeds of port leasing – which will free up the port to grow – and the potential sale of TIO banking, insurance, management rights and the MAC withdrawal process. It is about economics. Any other resources that might be put towards non-economic activity such as community infrastructure – like the model I spoke about earlier today in regard to investing in Royal Darwin Hospital or flood mitigation works – would generally be seen as non-economic activity and would not attract the 15% asset recycling component, which is fine. I have said before the 15% asset recycling model by Joe Hockey is not the reason government is looking at this. We are looking at this for the sole purpose of helping TIO into the future.
The fund legislation is being prepared now. I would like to think we could introduce it into parliament in November to debate it up hill and down dale. If a bid comes in for TIO banking and so forth, we would have to move quickly to protect the liquidity of TIO and the interests of those who have loans and finance arrangements with the bank. We are quite willing to do that in support of that industry.
I commend the motion to the House. I thank very much all members on this side of the Chamber who embraced the opportunity to debate this motion with open arms, have good solid ideas and who dispelled any myths or rumours.
I thank the member for Nelson for raising a range of good questions, all of which I am happy to either take on board or respond to. The question about the Stock Exchange IPO was a bloody good question. That was a direction I thought we should take in the first place, but was well advised against it. I fully understand and accept why that is not the way to go, for a range of reasons.
As we move forward over the next few days, there will be an opportunity for us to enter dialogue with anyone who would like to talk to me or government about what we could do, as part of the criteria for the the sale, so we could ensure we protect a range of different things, most importantly, that TIO – its sponsorship, its name, its brand and everything – stays. A fundamental from my point of view is to protect the most important attributes of TIO, that being its employees and customers. We have those strong policies of flood and cyclone components put into the mix in those negotiations.
Member for Nelson, if you have other things you want to raise with me I suggest you get them to me in the next few days. I would like to take them on board because anything that is reasonable will be considered in the passage of the sale, should that occur. I would like to have an open approach to sensible negotiations.
Mr Deputy Speaker, it is the same with anyone in the Chamber. I do not think I will get that from Labor naysaying, but if anyone has a sensible approach, I would appreciate open and honest feedback. We do not support the amendment and we put the motion.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
Amendment negatived.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
Motion agreed to.
TOBACCO CONTROL LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 88)
Continued from 26 August 2014.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome the debate and say up front the opposition will be supporting the amendments to the Tobacco Control Act.
This bill introduces a range of amendments which primarily target smoking in cars with children, mandating wholesalers are to provide tobacco sales information to the Territory government and tidying up some language around vending machines to make it consistent with Part 2AA of the Criminal Code Act.
It is well known that smoking is not good for anyone. Sadly, in the Territory we still top the list for the highest rates of smoking in the nation. Figures provided by the 2014 NT Tobacco Control Advisory Committee annual report show almost 60 000 Territorians smoke, which is around 32%, compared to 17% nationally; 66% of Indigenous men and 47% of Indigenous women smoke in the Northern Territory. The more remote you go, the more people smoke. For the non-Indigenous population, it is 28% for men and 20% for women. In the last 20 years there has been a positive steep decline in non-Indigenous women taking up smoking.
During pregnancy, a time where we know the mother’s health choices can directly impact their unborn child, we still have much more work to do. While 13% of non-Indigenous women smoke during pregnancy – a concern in itself – it is a deep concern that more than half of Indigenous women continue to smoke through pregnancy. Clearly there is a need for more work helping young Indigenous mums, especially those living in our remote communities, to understand the potential consequences for their unborn child of smoking and the exposure to others of smoking in their presence.
In Indigenous households there has been some positive progress, with an increase from 15% to 23% of homes with no smokers, and the percentage of homes where no one smoked inside increased from 40% to 48%. It is good that this health message seems to be working in practice: if you have to smoke, smoke outside the family home and not in the company of other family members and children.
Still, there is much more work to do in health promotion and awareness of the pitfalls of smoking – especially with young people taking up smoking – and supporting people who want to stop.
Some of these challenges are greater amongst some of the people on the lowest incomes and some of the most disadvantaged people in the Northern Territory. On top of a range of social, safety and other health problems many people face in the Territory, the consequences of poverty and poor health by smoking are further exacerbated by what people spend on cigarettes.
Let us not forget that smoking is highly addictive. Most people know smoking is not good for them and have a good idea of what the health problems are. Smoking can cause some fairly horrendous problems for individuals, such as lung and respiratory problems, cancers and heart problems. We have seen the cigarette packets that illustrate a range of other horrendous issues some people face. We also know when it comes to smoking around children there are some serious health issues associated with second-hand smoke. These include cancer, respiratory illnesses, middle ear infections and asthma. Also, with children exposed to second-hand smoke the rates of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome increase.
Cigarettes are costly for individuals and their families. They also are costly for the health system. We know cigarettes and addiction to smoking puts an additional burden on our hospitals, as people suffer from illnesses caused by smoking.
By the government’s figures, tobacco use also contributes to 7.8% of the burden of disease. This equates to costs of about $764m in the Northern Territory per year.
Children should not be exposed to second-hand smoke, especially in such a confined space as a car. I imagine most people in this Chamber struggle to understand why someone would want to drive a car knowing full well their children are in the back being exposed to second-hand smoke. It is completely unfair on children.
As parents we have a duty to protect and nurture our children, and to give them the best start in life. More broadly than that, I feel very strongly that every adult has a duty to do whatever they can to protect children from harm. As members of parliament, we have the ability to legislate appropriate measures, as we see in this bill today, to send a clear message that children must be protected from second-hand smoke. This is why these changes are responsible. I welcome the intent of this bill to introduce penalties for those who smoke in cars.
We have some questions about how the government anticipates promoting these changes. This is a great opportunity to get the message out about smoking in cars and the changes. However, there are also broader anti-smoking messages the government has an opportunity to deliver. It would be good if the minister could tell us a bit more about what the Department of Health intends to do about the promotion of these changes to the legislation to ban smoking in cars with children. Which locations around the Territory will they target? Will they be targeting certain language groups, for example? Which media will they use – radio, television, newspaper or social media? Will it be broader than just smoking in cars? Will they use it to send more of an anti-smoking message to those communities?
It would be good to find out a bit more about the practical enforcement of stopping people smoking in cars. What type of resources does the government anticipate supplying to train authorised officers to stop people from smoking in cars and issuing on-the-spot fines? It would also be good if the minister could give us an idea of how many people they anticipate booking for smoking in cars with children, how much of an issue it has been and what measures will be put in place to raise awareness about these new measures, especially out bush.
Another change to this legislation is to do with wholesale data collection. This bill will now make it possible for the Chief Health Officer to request that a wholesale provides information on the quantity of tobacco sold or supplied to retailers. This will give the Health department a picture of tobacco sales by location, which is a good thing. I was advised in a briefing that as wholesalers are already required to provide data to the federal government in order to comply with taxation requirements, this will be a relatively straightforward process. This also removes the burden from small business of doing this extra administrative work. This will better help target anti-smoking campaigns in the Territory, and give the Department of Health more information so it can better construct messaging to target people. It is a very welcome measure as part of this legislation and something we will be supporting.
Also in this amendment bill are changes to the language about cigarette vending machines. It is important there are strict requirements about vending machines to stop children accessing cigarettes. In my childhood it was pretty easy for people to go into hotels, for example, along the Esplanade, and access vending machines if they wanted to get their hands on cigarettes. This bill ensures there are strict conditions on the siting of vending machines, but ensures the wording is consistent with Part 2AA of the Criminal Code Act. This is a straightforward amendment to clean up language in the Criminal Code Act and another part of this legislation we support.
We are also keen for the minister to give us more information on how the department is monitoring vending machines across the Territory to ensure the laws under which they operate are complied with.
While we welcome this bill and the intent of the government in these areas of tobacco control as a positive step forward, we have seen other areas which have raised concerns regarding the Territory’s and the Abbott federal government’s commitment to funding to reduce smoking. These concerns were also raised in the 2014 annual report of the Northern Territory Tobacco Control Advisory Committee where it stated:
Associate Professor David Thomas, the head of the Tobacco Control Unit from the Menzies School of Health Research recently wrote:
Many health professionals are waiting to see what happens. Granted, this has a direct impact on the Territory. Can the minister outline where this has created cuts that have impacted local people? We know Indigenous Territorians have the highest rates of smoking. This is a time when we need to send a clear message to the Abbott government that these cuts will not close the gap on life expectancy. In fact, it will mean we lose more valuable ground that was made. We have also seen some mixed messages from the government with regard to its smoking policies and commitment.
Today we see a situation where the government has made appropriate and welcomed moves to toughen smoking laws. However, this comes after loosening other smoking restrictions that had been introduced. Looking back to adjournments earlier this year, on the evening where the former member for Blain, Terry Mills resigned, the Health Minister announced rollbacks of smoking restrictions. This included smoking at Royal Darwin Hospital and in clubs and pubs.
The NT Tobacco Advisory Committee, in its 2014 annual report, also commented on this. The report stated:
We also welcome the review into the use and potential regulation of e-cigarettes in the Northern Territory. There is a need for consultation and it would be good to hear a bit more about what work the government is intending to do in this area.
I have heard some ex-smokers on radio – and have had a very upset and panicking constituent come to see me – who were under the impression e-cigarettes were to be banned altogether. These people used e-cigarettes to help them quit smoking. It is important to make sure the right message goes out to ensure we do not raise too many alarm bells. I was quite taken aback by how panic stricken the person I spoke to was. Clearly we have to make sure the message is right.
In conclusion, we welcome this legislation and the government’s moves to ban smoking in cars where children are passengers. We welcome the work being done to ensure it can get more meaningful data from tobacco wholesalers so it can get a better understanding of where and what tobacco products are being sold in the Territory. That way it can better target its campaigns to ensure we do everything we can to reduce smoking rates in the Northern Territory.
There is a bit of work to do and fair bit of anxiety with regard to the Tackling Indigenous Smoking program. A figure of $130m is a huge cut and it is an area where we know work needs to be done to help more Indigenous Territorians quit smoking or not take up the habit in the first place. We need to make every effort to ensure those cuts are minimised in the Territory and that we do not lose good, dedicated professionals working in the health sector to tackle smoking.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Dr Jo Wright and Warwick Kneebone from the Department of Health for their briefing. It was greatly appreciated. Yes, we support this legislation and see it as another step in the right direction to reduce smoking in the Northern Territory.
Mrs FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, I wholeheartedly support this bill and am proud to be part of a government that supports and protects the most vulnerable members of our society.
This legislation prohibits anyone from smoking in a motor vehicle carrying a passenger under 16 years of age. It brings the Northern Territory law into line with the rest of Australia and ensures we continue our pursuit to provide a safe and healthy environment for Territory children.
I emphasise that children are vulnerable members of our society who need our care and protection, and that is our motivation for developing this legislation. It is a fact that second-hand smoke is extremely dangerous to people, especially children. It is a poison that is unsafe at any level. To put it bluntly, smoking in a car carrying children and adolescents means you are knowingly and willingly poisoning them.
Second-hand smoke is produced in two ways in burning tobacco. The first is sidestream smoke, which is the smoke that emanates from the lit end of the cigarette or cigar. The other is mainstream smoke which is smoke exhaled by the smoker. Evidence shows the health risks of children inhaling second-hand smoke or passive smoking are significant.
Children’s and adolescent’s bodies makes them more vulnerable to the harmful effects of the poison. Babies who are surrounded by smoke in their household have an increased risk of developing a variety of respiratory illnesses, such as pneumonia and bronchitis, and are more susceptible to getting colds and middle ear infections. Furthermore, these children are more likely to develop asthma symptoms and suffer from asthma attacks than those who are kept away from second-hand smoke. Overall, passive smoking significantly affects the lungs of young people, with children developing horrible coughs which can be combined with the build-up of phlegm.
Along with respiratory problems that can develop in children, they are also at risk of suffering any one of a long list of illnesses or conditions that passive smoking adults might be struck with. Needless to say, lung cancer can be attributed to passive smoking. While young children are not often diagnosed with lung cancer, early exposure to tobacco smoke damages the lungs and may increase their risk of developing this horrible cancer in later years.
An important consideration for us all to take on board is that passive smoking is a cause of sudden unexpected death in infants or SUDI. SUDI includes fatal sleep accidents and sudden infant death syndrome or SIDS.
SIDS and Kids NT fully supports the Northern Territory government for introducing this important legislation. SIDS and Kids implores parents to keep their baby’s environment completely smoke free, which includes the family car.
Along with the health complications I have already outlined, SIDS and Kids advise me babies who are exposed to passive smoking do not arouse as well as babies in a smoke-free environment. Babies need to easily arouse during sleep so they can move their head, swallow and gasp for air if something obstructs their airways or throat.
Additionally, SIDS and Kids NT is unwavering in its stance against passive smoking around children. Smoking is one of the most important risk factors that can be modified to reduce the risk of SIDS and it knows this legislation will help reduce that risk.
Not only are there serious physical health effects for children when adults smoke in cars, there are other important points to remember surrounding a child’s understanding of smoking, the assertiveness of children, as well as parents’ modelling negative behaviour.
Children do not have a complete understanding of the risks of smoking and do not know the full effect second-hand smoke can have on their health. Therefore, they are less likely to try to avoid second-hand smoke, such as getting out of the vehicle when an adult lights a cigarette, or moving upwind when outdoors.
We need to remember that children are reluctant and often unable to confront adults. It is hard for a child to say, ‘Please do not smoke near me’, so it is not uncommon for children to bear the smoke and remain silent. What is worse is a car is a very confined space, and winding the windows down to let the smoke out is not a solution.
Importantly, when an adult smokes around a child, the adult is demonstrating that smoking is normal behaviour. Only 13% of the Australian population aged 14 years and over smoke tobacco. We need to show children it is not the norm or part of living a normal healthy lifestyle.
Other benefits may extend to changing parents’ thinking, as this legislation might encourage parents not to smoke around children in other places, such as at home or at sport on the weekends. It might also go some way to remind parents they should move away from their child when they smoke, a simple act that can bring huge benefits for their child.
Other jurisdictions already have this legislation and it has created healthier habits among adults who smoke. This legislation will be a success story for parents, children and our society as a whole. Police will be encouraged to enforce this new law and do what they can to help protect Territory kids.
Smoking brings illness and death and costs society dearly. Smoking kills 15 000 Australians each year, with the social, health and economic costs adding up to over $31bn. In the Territory, smoking costs us over $700m every year and I dare not think about how many lives of Territorians have been lost due to tobacco.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this legislation will no doubt help protect our children. It will ensure they are provided with a safe environment when travelling with adults. The health of our young ones is paramount and we are committed to helping them grow as healthy and happy as they can be. I commend the minister for bringing this bill to the house and I encourage everyone in the House to support it.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I also support the bill. I hope my daughter, my electorate officer and the cleaner are not listening because, unfortunately, they all smoke. When I mention it I am basically told to go away and stop preaching. I understand it is a very difficult habit for many people to give up.
Unfortunately, in my job as local member, I have seen many people die from the effects of smoking. I have been to many funerals of people who smoked. That was the main cause of the cancer that killed them.
It is easy to tell someone to give it up, but you have to understand it is not easy to give up ...
Mr Elferink: That is not true; I have given up lots of times.
Mr WOOD: That is right. But you are a strong man.
Mr Elferink: No, no, you missed the joke.
Mr WOOD: Sorry, I did not hear it all.
I remember some years ago listening to a tape from the BBC on various drugs which said for people to give up tobacco is like giving up heroin. It is not an easy drug to give up. If you can avoid getting into the habit in the first place, then you have a better chance of staying right away.
The section of the bill that has been amended is about prohibiting people smoking in a motor vehicle carrying children under the age of 16. I agree with that. Obviously if we can protect children from tobacco smoke we are doing something, at least, to reduce the harmful effects of – as we call it these days – passive smoking.
It is interesting that the government has made a rule that this only applies to people under 16. When they are 16 years and one day, it does not matter. We have this arbitrary rule for children, but they are human beings and smoking will affect them at any age.
In certain vehicles, like a public bus, you are prohibited from smoking. Whilst I support what has been presented today I wonder whether government should not have taken a further step and said, ‘You cannot smoke in a motor vehicle where you have other passengers’. We have made a distinction that it is harmful for someone 16 years and under. Even though it is harmful for people over 16, the impression you get from this amendment is that it is not such a concern. There seems to be an anomaly there.
As the member for Wanguri said, you have issues about policing it. If you can police it in relation to a person under 16, why can you not police it for a person over 16? We have this concept that it is dangerous to be in a vehicle where someone is smoking, but we discriminate in whether that is an offence based on the age of the person affected. If we are serious about the effect of passive smoking, that would apply to all people. It will be great if we work to make it harder for people to smoke.
This has brought to mind a couple of things that have happened in recent years in Singapore, New Zealand and Tasmania, where they have tried to set targets for no-smoking programs. There was a bill – I do not know whether it passed in Tasmania – which was based on the Singapore model under which if you were born after 2000 you could not be sold tobacco. It was revolutionary. It did not stop you from smoking, but it stopped you from buying cigarettes. Nobody could sell cigarettes to anyone born after 2000. The idea was that hopefully older people would be the only ones smoking and there would be fewer younger people doing it ...
Mr McCarthy: They would die out.
Mr WOOD: The member or Barkly hit it on the head. That is correct; that is what it was about.
I have not looked at the Singapore rules, but they were obviously trying to make it, eventually, a non-smoking country. They had the idea that if you were born after a certain year, you could not be sold cigarettes. Here if you are a certain age you cannot buy cigarettes; you have to show your ID. If we do not go down that path we should try to set some strong targets.
As the member for Wanguri said, many Indigenous people smoke far too much, which the statistics show. When I worked on Bathurst Island I remember children smoking. I remember the days when you could sit in the back of the ute; children would run behind the vehicle I was driving and yell out for smokes. Smokes would be thrown onto the road and they would pick them up.
It is a serious issue if we are to reduce the cost to the Territory and taxpayers who have to pay for the damage cigarette smoking causes people. Besides the social effects of smoking, with people being sick and families losing loved ones, there is an economic downside as well.
Anything we can do to reduce the number of people smoking – if we can put roadblocks in the way in the hope they will think about what they are doing – is a great thing. I am interested to know if the government has some long-term vision. In New Zealand, their vision is that New Zealand will be non-smoking by 2025. That does not mean there will not be any smoking, but they are restricting it so much with a target which will mean it is not totally out of existence, but very close to it.
Mr Deputy Speaker, it is a difficult area in the Territory, especially if we are to change the habit of many people that causes so much premature death, and sometimes terrible death. If this amendment can in some way help do that, then I support it.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Health): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank everyone who has participated in this discussion on the amendment to the Tobacco Control Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 (Serial 88) for their support and very intelligent contribution to the debate about the problem of smoking in the Northern Territory. It still is a huge problem in our community. I thank the member for Wanguri for providing some interesting statistics on smoking.
Tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable disease and early death amongst Indigenous Australians, with smoking responsible for about one in every five deaths. That is staggering. One in every five deaths of our Indigenous people is still attributed to smoking, after all the work that has been done and all the money poured into the awareness campaign about the damage smoking causes.
Among Indigenous Australians, tobacco use contributes to 80% of all lung cancer deaths, 37% of heart disease, 9% of all strokes and 5% of low birth weight babies. In Central Australia, rates of pneumonia among children are reported to be the highest in the world, reaching 78.4 cases per 1000 children every year – staggering.
Although we are seeing reductions in smoking rates across Australia, 42% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are daily smokers, compared to 16% in the non-Indigenous population. In some remote communities, this estimate is as high as 83%. Twice as many Indigenous people in Australia smoke than non-Indigenous people. This is particularly a big problem in the Northern Territory where our smoking rates are the highest in Australia.
We continue to work to battle this habit which causes profound health problems throughout our community. Yes, the member for Wanguri is correct; the Australian government recently announced funding cuts of $130m over five years to the Tackling Indigenous Smoking program, which amounts to more than one-third of the program’s annual funding. It beggars belief why it would do that, given the rate of smoking, the destruction it causes and the national commitment to Closing the Gap. Smoking is one of the biggest killers. For the federal government to make that significant cut is bewildering, to say the least.
I reiterate that this government is committed to continuing the campaign against smoking. We, as a government, understand the importance of making amendments with our Tobacco Control Bill to ensure we tighten it up and minimise the impact of smoking on our people.
As the member for Drysdale pointed out, we have to look after our most vulnerable in the community, the children. That is precisely what this legislation does. Very simply, as people have already stated this evening, banning smoking of cigarettes or tobacco in cars carrying children makes perfect sense. We are the last jurisdiction to bring in such legislation.
Once again, I find myself asking why Labor did not do it. Every other state in the country did it years ago. We have taken control of the government and moved on changing this legislation as soon as possible.
I will talk briefly about e-cigarettes, quite a controversial topic not just in the Northern Territory, but throughout Australia and internationally. Some of you may have seen a recent documentary on this – it may have been on Four Corners; I cannot remember precisely – talking about the traps and disadvantage of e-cigarettes.
One of the greatest criticisms pointed out to me by one of our local primary healthcare experts is these mechanisms, which are vaporising devices – the common term used when smoking these contraptions is ‘vaping’. It is not smoking, it is vaping. They resemble cigarettes, they look like cigarettes, and some of them resemble a cigarette with the yellowy coloured butt and the white end. Some of them do not resemble cigarettes as much, but they all resemble a smoking implement. The fact they are not is neither here nor there. The point is they look like cigarettes, the vapour that comes out of them looks like smoke, and particularly for young people it can almost glamorise cigarette smoking, which is precisely what we have been trying to counter for decades.
In the Northern Territory we have no regulations regarding e-cigarettes whatsoever. Anyone – whether you are two years old, 20 years old or 80 years old – theoretically can go into a shop and buy e-cigarettes or an implement and the vapour liquid to put in it. What is banned in Australia is the nicotine liquid that can be purchased, I understand, on the Internet. I am told even locally some shops sell the vaporising liquid with nicotine in it. That is illegal and should not be sold. However, nothing else is illegal. You can buy the whole outfit.
I carried out a fact-finding mission in Alice Springs a few weeks ago. I went to a local tobacconist and got the assistant to show me her cabinet with the devices in them. She described each and every one. There are dozens of different flavoured vaporising liquids you can use in them. She pointed out in her shop she does not sell any smoking products, whether they be tobacco or e-cigarettes, to anyone under the age of 18. That is a decision she made as a retailer. She described the different price categories. The cheapest vaporising devise was around $14 and the liquid was between $10 and $15. It is a much cheaper device than tobacco. For people who use them, particularly those who are trying to wean themselves off tobacco cigarettes, they find the consumption of e-cigarettes and the vaporising fluid is a lot cheaper than smoking cigarettes, which is a great incentive for some people.
As a government, we do not plant to ban these devices. Already the nicotine vaporising liquid is banned, so we do not need to touch that. However, we would like to bring in the same regulations for e-cigarettes as tobacco products. To allow children access to these implements would be a retrograde step.
There has been some confusion in the community about our intention. At this stage I am fairly confident – although it has not been to Cabinet yet – that none of us are interested in banning e-cigarettes because the jury is out. Some people find them incredibly useful when they are trying to get off tobacco cigarettes, and some doctors even recommend the use of e-cigarettes as opposed to other forms of nicotine or cigarette replacement.
We will consider, as a government, bringing in the same regulations for e-cigarettes as exist for tobacco cigarettes – as simple as that. The ban would only be for children or people under the age of 18 years. Generally, this government agrees if you are over 18 you can make a choice whether or not to buy e-cigarettes in a mature and informed manner.
I address a point the member for Nelson made about having a complete ban of cigarettes in cars with passengers, regardless of age. His point was if you were driving a car and you have a passenger, no matter what the age, it should be considered that smoking be banned.
The difference between an adult and a child is an adult can choose to get out of the car if the driver wishes to smoke, whereas a child may not normally have that choice. We are looking after the interests of children in this amendment to the legislation.
This has been a very positive move of this government. It will not stop here; we will continue to strive to reduce the level of smoking in the community. We have throughout the Northern Territory primary healthcare centres that are briefed to battle this. I have visited many remote health services and the fight against tobacco consumption is very high on their list of priorities. It is a part of their everyday work. They see the effects of smoking and they, as professional people, are briefed to combat it within a health framework.
We have that in place and it will not be affected by the budget cuts announced by the federal government for the Tackling Indigenous Smoking program. Our primary healthcare network throughout the Northern Territory is committed to the reduction of tobacco consumption.
Madam Speaker, I thank the members for their contributions.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Health) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 28 August 2014.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, we support this bill. It essentially allows someone 14 years and over to play paintball. We have no problems with that. The only practical concern is safety.
I remember when a bill was first presented to allow paintball into the Northern Territory, and safety was raised then. This is a regulated sport that is managed. We are not convinced about the safety argument. The Chief Minister has talked about age-appropriate safety wear, which makes sense. There will be a size difference between a 14-year-old and an 18-year-old. Where before paintball participants were larger, there is an obvious size difference you will have in the safety gear. However, that can be managed on-site by the paintball company.
At the time the legislation was first presented for paintball, there were also concerns about encouraging people to shoot each other. I do not have sympathy for the argument that paintball can encourage or train people in violent behaviour. That is not something I buy into it, but it came up at the time. Safety is a practical concern that can be addressed.
The Territory is a great place to live, with big open spaces and warm weather all year round, so let there be paintball. That is, essentially, what led to it being allowed in the Territory in the first place. There is now an idea of letting more people play – no worries. Growing up in the Territory I would have loved to have had paintball as an option, whether in Alice Springs, Tennant Creek or Darwin. It would have been good. I would have taken it up, but it was not there; we had to do other things. But that is okay, you always find a way to entertain yourself in the Territory.
It is good paintball is here. We have no problems on our side in opening up the age. It is a good thing and increases the market.
There can be cheeky kids – not to say, Chief Minister, that you or I were cheeky kids; maybe the member for Johnston was a cheeky kid – who, between 14 and 18 – if I did not touch on this already – need parental consent. There is a chance a kid between 14 and 18 does not always receive parental consent, but looks like he has in how that is processed. I am sure there will be …
Mr Westra van Holthe: Kids would not do that, would they? Surely not?
Mr GUNNER: Which kid would do that? No Territory kid would do that! All visiting kids would do that.
There may be a management concern around the seeking of parental consent. I am sure no Territory kid has ever forged a note their parent has not signed.
Madam Speaker, we support this legislation; we have no problem with the opening up of paintball. With the Territory lifestyle, it is good to have paintball. It is good to allow Territory kids to have greater access to paintball, with the youth programs, etcetera. We have no problems with this at all.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, we often say in this House it is a pleasure to speak on a motion, bill or some other item of business that comes before government. However, this evening it genuinely is a pleasure to talk about this bill.
It is a pleasure because a couple of years ago the owner of Katherine Paintball in Katherine, Gary Hickey, and I had a conversation about paintball. He was lamenting to me that he was struggling a bit with his business because his clientele base was quite limited. Anyone over the age of 18 could legally play paintball. That restricted his clientele. He presented to me some information about other jurisdictions and the age ranges allowed to play paintball there. If I remember rightly one of those jurisdictions – it might well have been Tasmania, but I will stand corrected – had an age of 10 where children were able to play paintball. If it was not 10, I will stand corrected. It was quite young. In some jurisdictions it is definitely as young as 12.
To me it seemed a bit of a no-brainer that children of a reasonable age should be able to play paintball. I have played paintball in Queensland; I have not here. I know the sport is very highly regulated, well-looked after and the safety protocols in place are very robust.
It was that conversation in Katherine that started the ball rolling to where we are today. That is why I am delighted we have now arrived at the point where we will amend the legislation to allow children between the ages of 14 and 18, with parental consent, to join in the wonderful game of paintball.
One of the great things I like about this sport, as I do with all sports – and I am great supporter of all sport, particularly in Katherine – is it gets kids out from behind television and play station screens and all those things, to do something active. It teaches the children a bit of discipline and self-control. Let us face it, they can do probably the most important thing, and that is have fun. Children should be entitled to have fun. As long as they accept the responsibility that comes with something like picking up a paintball gun, they should be able to have fun.
When I was thinking about how moving the age sits in the bigger picture, I harked back to my policing days and my knowledge of the Criminal Code Act. My understanding is that children of the age of 10 or above are considered criminally responsible unless it can be shown they did not understand the nature of their actions. Once children reach that magical age of 14, they become fully criminally responsible under the law. Putting those two issues together – the age of criminal responsibility and lowering the paintball age – it seemed to me to be quite sensible and appropriate to reduce the age to 14, acknowledging that children reaching the age of 14 accept they have criminal responsibility so they should also be given some privileges that go along with that. One of the privileges afforded to 14-year-olds, as of tonight, will be to play paintball.
Most things that needed to be said on this debate have been said. I am pleased we have arrived at this point. Gary Hickey in Katherine and the two other paintball operators – one in Alice Springs and one in Darwin – will be delighted with the outcome of the passage of this legislation.
Madam Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for bringing the legislation into the House and all of those who worked behind the scenes to make it happen. A police review was done of the paintball legislation. Thank you to the police who conducted that. This is a good change, it is sensible, it works and, not only that, it supports small business.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): If you want to support small business, they are not in Darwin they are at Freds Pass Reserve. I am sure the Speaker would not like me to forget that United Paintball is in her electorate. I do not want to verbal you, Madam Speaker, but you and I both agree with the member for Katherine that if we can get children doing something, that is terrific. Freds Pass is a great recreational reserve – minus the swimming pool – and many kids use that reserve …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Perhaps on the Building the Territory website you might be able to nominate a swimming pool for the rural area.
Mr WOOD: I should say come in spinner. It has crossed my mind.
I concur with the member for Katherine. Right next to the paintball is the archery at Freds Pass. There are young people using bows and arrows. The only difference is you do not fire them into a person. Young people are given the responsibility of using a weapon, which can be dangerous if not used properly. All we are doing here is something similar; we are giving children an opportunity to take up a recreational sport and have a bit of fun. There is no harm in that.
As the member for Katherine said, it has been reviewed by the police. Obviously the paintball people are supportive of it because it will increase their business. In the case of Freds Pass, it will help expand the possibilities for people, because it is the best sporting facility in the Territory. I am not saying that just because I come from there but because of the number of sports held there. Anything from four-legged to two-legged – all sports are played there. It is a terrific facility and this will help make it a better facility.
Madam Speaker, I support the bill.
Mr GILES (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I thank the members for Fannie Bay, Katherine and Nelson for their support. There is not a lot of debate in a second reading such as this. The bill is only small with small changes. It is to lower the age from 18 to 14 and put in place the regulatory environment for parental approval for those aged between 14 and 18.
It brings the Territory regulations in line with other jurisdictions, member for Katherine. In Western Australia and South Australia children as young as 12 are allowed to participate. You mentioned Tasmania at 10, and it spurred my mind. I am sure somewhere allows 10-year-olds but my notes only indicate 12 in Western Australia and South Australia. It provides a level of fairness in the playing field across jurisdictions.
The member for Fannie Bay said he would love to have played paintball when he was younger. I played paintball many times. You have both spoken about kids playing it. The member for Fannie Bay spoke about a reluctance when paintball came to the Territory from many because they thought it would lead to a propensity for people to want to use guns.
I have been to a number of schools with programs to teach students how to use guns – whether that is clay targets or rifles – and make kids aware of the importance of gun safety and gun handling, and that is a sensible thing to do. I have been on many shooting trips where I have been with people who have not been well educated in safety mechanisms and the appropriate use of firearms. People are more of a danger to themselves in that environment. Any opportunity for people to be better educated on the importance of protection and safety around guns is very important. Potentially, paintball as a recreational sport can assist younger and older Territorians to get involved in educating themselves.
This will assist small business, member for Katherine. There is another element of removing red tape. I am not sure if you are aware, but since coming to government the Country Liberals have removed more than 200 pieces of red tape that have been holding us back. I am not sure if you are also aware, but between 2006 and 2011 the Northern Territory increased red tape to the point where it had the most in Australia and cost $4bn per year. Removing 200 pieces in two years is good but there is much more to go. This is more red tape removal that will not only give kids an opportunity to do something at a younger age, but assist and support business – the three paintball operators now in the Territory.
Madam Speaker, I thank members for their support of the Firearms Amendment Bill. Good luck to the business operators in the Territory who may see this as an opportunity to expand their business. Member for Katherine, it is always satisfying to deliver an outcome and a positive response to a policy commitment to local business to help them move forward. That is one of the joys of being in government and one of the mandates is you get to govern and make improvements for the Territory. Well done in that regard.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr GILES (Police, Fire and Emergency Services)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 28 October 2014.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Health): Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure to talk in this Chamber to the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report 2013-14, the TAFR.
This is a story of great progress and huge success for a government that has only been in power for just over two years. Since the Northern Territory general election in August 2012 the Northern Territory government has been focused on reducing Labor’s debt and returning the Northern Territory’s budget to a balanced position in 2017-18.
In the lead-up to the 2013-14 budget the priority has been meeting the cost of a range of unfunded legacy items and this government’s election commitments. When we first came to government, in the Department of Children and Families alone there was $30m of unfunded commitments from the former Labor government which it had not attended to. It had no money to pay for what it intended to spend. This is just one example of the lack of responsibility when it came to managing the funds of the Northern Territory.
The Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report establishes the Giles Country Liberals government’s credentials in managing the Territory’s finances and successfully nursing the Territory economy back to health. It was a broken machine when we came in, I assure you. Just two years ago the state of the Northern Territory’s books were appalling.
The general government sector operating balance is now in a surplus position of $119m, a $349m improvement when compared to the original 2013-14 budget. That is amazing progress and we, on this side of the Chamber are extremely proud of our work in this area. The surplus position means this element of the government’s fiscal strategy has been achieved a full three years ahead of the 2016-17 target year – incredible.
While returning the budget to a balanced position we have also improved services to Territorians. I am proud of the biggest Northern Territory investment in health this financial year, with an overall Northern Territory government investment of an additional $33.6m.
I heard an opposition member state that we had reduced health funding in the Northern Territory. Absolute nonsense! We have increased Northern Territory funding for the Department of Health by $33.6m. I am not sure where they get their information, but the appalling way they managed their budget over the 11-year period they were in reign is indicative of how they misunderstood how to go about fiscal management.
It is important to stress that the government has continued its focus on fiscal restraint with an emphasis on efficiency and service delivery improvements. The additional investment in the Health budget is a clear demonstration of the positive impact of this approach.
Overall, the operating outcomes have flowed through the Territory’s balance sheet and improved the net debt position, as I heard the new member for Blain talk about earlier today. The non-fiscal public sector net debt is $3.1bn for 2013-14, $1.3bn lower than the original 2013-14 budget projection. That is equivalent to the whole Health budget. The Health budget is the biggest of any in government, so that is, once again, staggering – a great success. I am very proud to talk about our success.
Net debt to revenue has declined to 53%, a 27% improvement from the 80% projected at the time of the original 2013-14 budget. These figures are staggering in anyone’s terms. The Giles Country Liberals government has wiped off in excess of $1bn of Labor’s projected net debt since assuming office in August 2012.
Specific key factors contributing to the improved fiscal balance outcome since the original budget are increased revenues of $344m, the revised timing of the handover of the $521m Darwin Correctional Precinct and around $230m in lower operational and capital spending – restraint.
It is important to stress that the government has not increased its taxation effort, rather it is buoyant economic activity that has led to increased revenues. Overall, the achievement of a general government operating balance surplus a full three years ahead of target and a significantly reduced fiscal balance deficit and net debt position is evidence this government is fiscally responsible.
The Territory business community is responding to the economic management and policies of the Giles Country Liberals government. The Sensis Business Index is the quarterly survey that tracks business confidence in small and medium businesses in the Territory. This year’s September report reveals the Northern Territory recorded the largest increase in business confidence in Australia. Business confidence for the Northern Territory’s small and medium businesses increased to 50%. This is 33% higher than the last quarter. Nationally, the business confidence level of small and medium businesses is 28%. Ours is 50%, 22% higher than the national level of business confidence.
Above average levels of confidence were also recorded across the Territory. Small and medium businesses in Darwin are the most confident of those in capital cities. Small and medium businesses in the Northern Territory reported increases in most performance indicators: the size of their workforce, wage bill, prices and capital expenditure. As a small business owner, I am very aware of the importance economic confidence has in the sustainability of small and medium businesses, particularly when staffing represents a significant portion of costs.
Employment growth in the Northern Territory is the strongest of all states and territories. Small and medium businesses recognise the Country Liberals government is putting in place plans that support them. The government moved to help drive down the price of fuel by offering prime land for a new discount fuel stop. The government also released a draft fuel price disclosure bill for public discussion, setting out a framework for retailers in major centres to report their costs and profits to the Consumer Affairs Commissioner.
The government is cutting red tape, putting in place procurement reforms, driving land release and infrastructure developments to boost our economy and drive down the cost of living – and it is having an effect. The annual growth of Darwin’s CPI has continued to fall. In this year’s September quarter it dropped to 2.7%, continuing its steady fall from the 4.4% peak recorded in the December quarter of 2013.
The government saw a further example of the growing confidence Territorians have in it at the Casuarina by-election, which was the weekend before last. There was a massive swing to the Country Liberals, which was a huge vote of confidence in our work. Labor’s primary vote collapsed by a staggering 17 points. In the end, only 50 votes separated the major parties and, ultimately, Labor’s win was reliant on preferences from their friends, The Greens. There is still more work to do, and we look forward to working with Territorians over the next two years as we implement further policies to create jobs, release more land and help reduce the cost of living.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I move that the debate be adjourned.
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I place on the record that I took up the Leader of Government Business’s challenge. The Chief Minister brought the TAFR to the House and the Leader of Government Business gave me two days to prepare. I would like the House to know that I am prepared. I am very much looking forward to responding and providing analysis through filling in the gaps of the Treasurer’s statement.
Madam Speaker, it is a little disappointing but I will accept the Leader of Government Business’s challenge in, I believe, the next sittings in November.
Mr ELFERINK: The preparation of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is noted by the government. We congratulate him for his, I presume, work in this area. See? You could do it.
Debate adjourned.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, recreational fishing is an important part of the Northern Territory lifestyle. It is a major tourism drawcard and a growing contributor to the Territory’s economy.
In the August sittings this year, during my reply to the Chief Minister’s midterm statement, I briefly touched on the progress and projects achieved to date in relation to my portfolios, including as the Fisheries minister.
As we all know, fishing is near and dear to the hearts of many Territorians. It is an integral part of the Top End lifestyle and brings many economic benefits to the Territory in the form of tourism, jobs and commerce. Indeed, for some it is far more than just a hobby or pastime. You might say it borders on obsession or even a religion.
Today I provide the Assembly with a progress report on the Northern Territory government’s achievements in support of growing and enhancing the Territory’s recreational fishing opportunities. In recognition of the importance of fishing for Territorians, in the past two years this government has put some real runs on the board. We have closed Finke and Chambers Bays to commercial barramundi fishing; established the Recreational Fishing Advisory Committee; implemented the Recreational Fishery Development Plan; established a recreational fishing data survey program to better understand recreational fishing patterns in the Territory; reached six agreements with traditional owners around the Territory for ongoing access by fishers to waters affected by the Blue Mud Bay decision; and implemented a comprehensive safety and recreational fishing education program in conjunction with Marine Safety.
Today it is my pleasure to provide details on the latest move to improve and increase access to world-class recreational fishing on Darwin’s doorstep. The Northern Territory government has removed the seasonal closure for recreational fishing on the Mary River. From tomorrow, recreational fishers will be able to fish year-round at the iconic Shady Camp barrage and along the Mary River. The Amateur Fishermen’s Association of the NT, the Recreational Fishing Advisory Committee (RFAC) and the Barramundi Fishery Advisory Committee were consulted and all wholeheartedly support this move.
In the 1980s a permanent barramundi fishing closure in the Mary River system was introduced for commercial operators, and a seasonal closure in the Mary River system was introduced for recreational fishers. This was in response to a decline in barramundi stocks. However, in 2012 the Country Liberals government closed Chambers and Finke Bays to commercial barramundi fishing, effectively removing any impact on barramundi stocks from the commercial fishery in the Mary River area.
The combination of good Wet Seasons and improved management changes has allowed the barramundi stock to recover to extremely healthy levels in the Mary River catchment. The Mary River is now an enormously healthy and very lightly fished area, with less than 5% of spawning stock fished.
Public consultation has overwhelmingly supported the notion, and the Giles government will open up the Mary River for recreational barramundi fishing all year round. The Mary River is an iconic barramundi fishery, and opening it for year-round fishing means anglers will be able to wet a line, regardless of the date.
As the popular saying goes, ‘That is not all’. The $2.5m project to upgrade two critical barrages on the Mary River near Shady Camp to reduce saltwater intrusion onto the wetlands and valuable pastoral land will be completed by early November. The capital works program will combat the saltwater intrusion near Shady Camp through the upgrade of these two critical barrages on the Mary. The floodplains around the Mary River contain some of the most productive areas of biodiversity in Australia. It has wetland conservation values of international standards, is recognised as a site of biodiversity conservation significance and has important cultural values.
Following trials in 2013, new engineering designs have been used to construct the barrages which will assist in the short term to reduce the speed of saltwater intrusion in the lower Mary River floodplains upstream of the main Shady Camp barrage.
The new designs will see rock armoured barrages will low rock-lined spillways constructed to the same height as surrounding floodplains. This will allow for better interconnectivity between the river and floodplains, which will facilitate fish migration in the system and allow a more cost-effective utilisation of the annual repair and maintenance program. Delivery of this capital works program will work to improve the short-term management of the risk of saltwater intrusion and help protect significant breeding sites for vast populations of water birds in the Northern Territory, including magpie geese, protecting major breeding areas for fish species and freshwater pastures for cattle stock.
Work on our commitment to establish new self-launch boat ramps is also in progress. The government committed $4.5m for recreational fishing infrastructure. Advice was sought from the Recreational Fishing Advisory Committee on the best expenditure of this money so recreational fishers would get the biggest and best bang for these bucks.
There were many competing projects, but Dundee was chosen as a priority. Options are currently under consideration to maximise outcomes for this $4.5m commitment. A further $50 000 is committed in 2014 for a study on future boat ramp requirements in the Darwin metropolitan area.
For a long time the Territory has been a celebrated fishing destination in Australia. However, the combination of a growing Territory population, incredible advances in fishing technology and increased fishing tourism has seen our fisheries come under great pressure. This has made the task of balancing how we manage and use our fisheries more difficult. Balancing competing uses and differing views on the best use of our fish stocks can be a difficult task. This is why the NT government is developing a resource-sharing framework which will enable evidenced-based analysis to be applied to resolve access and resource attribution issues, as well as give industry the certainty it needs to invest with confidence.
This new policy framework will guide how fishery allocation decisions are made in the future. This is a significant piece of work at a national level and underscores our commitment to getting the balance right. A stakeholder-based working group has prepared a draft framework that has undergone public consultation. I am currently considering the group’s final report.
One of the most important issues for fishing is access. This government is working hard to achieve win/win outcomes for traditional owners and recreational fishers through the Blue Mud Bay negotiation process.
In order to honour the decision made by the High Court of Australia, negotiations are under way with many community leaders to secure outcomes that allow permit-free access to as much of the Territory coastline as possible.
Agreements reached to date provide anglers with access to the vast majority of waters around Darwin as well as regional hotspots such as Borroloola and Nhulunbuy. In partnership with traditional owners, my department produced a recreational fishing code of conduct and information brochures for the Daly and McArthur Rivers. To date, six agreements have been reached and the Northern Territory government is committed to providing traditional owners from all areas the opportunity to negotiate an agreement with government.
The department commenced a 12-month recreational fishing survey in the greater Darwin area in December 2013. This survey involves face-to-face interviews at selected boat ramps between the Adelaide River mouth and Dundee. During the first six months of data collection, interviewers spent a combined total of 382 days at boat ramps and collected information from nearly 1000 individual fishing parties.
The primary focus of the survey was to collect data on catch, effort and participation rates in recreational fishing. Interviewers have also collected relevant biological information on some socially important fish species, as well as information on vessel size and the level of expenditure on fishing.
At the completion of the 12-month period the data will be processed, extrapolated and analysed, and a final report produced. The information provided by these surveys will help inform future management of recreational fishing and ensure we have sustainable fish stocks for future generations of Territorians to enjoy.
In future years surveys will be conducted in other parts of the Territory. This government is committed to sustainable management and future development of recreational fishing. My department of Primary Industry and Fisheries has an ongoing fishing and boating safety awareness campaign that uses both television advertising and printed material. The fisheries Facebook site has over 2000 followers, with an average post receiving over 2000 views.
Barotrauma has been one of the stronger themes of our education campaign and a serious reduction of the number of reef fish released after capture will need to play a large part in the recovery strategy. The challenge is to influence behavioural change voluntarily. This applies with special importance to the release of fish affected by barotrauma.
Through the ongoing commitment of the Northern Territory government’s Indigenous Community Marine Ranger Program, a significant increase in fisheries compliance in remote areas is being achieved. Marine ranger groups are undertaking regular patrols across our coastline, providing valuable information on fishing activity, assisting in fisheries research, aquatic pest monitoring and removing ghost nets from our waters.
In the past 12 months marine rangers have conducted over 109 patrols. They are also conducting fisheries research functions such as the collection of the otolith, or ear bones, for age of fish, and the fish measurements. The presence of marine rangers has improved voluntarily compliance in remote areas and this will provide future benefits to fisheries and fishers.
Indigenous rangers have also been leading marine safety initiatives for Indigenous Territorians and recreational and commercial fishers, and rescued seven vessels in distress during 2012-13. These rangers are also used in Emergency Services search and rescue operations, and add another layer of security for all boat owners.
To date, over 70 marine rangers have completed a Certificate II in Fisheries Compliance. Training in technical research skills has also recently been undertaken by marine rangers that will build their capacity to participate in research programs and allow for more efficient delivery in remote areas.
A new 11.9 m fisheries research vessel, Mallarra, was commissioned in July 2014. Mallarra means manta ray, which is appropriate as the manta ray is believed by Indigenous saltwater people to be the guardian of the sea. This new vessel will play a major role in monitoring the health of our coastal reef fish stocks, as well as enabling research in the barramundi fishery, small pelagic fishery and other scientific monitoring projects. The Mallarra will be very much the guardian of the sea and our fishery.
The size and fit-out of the Mallarra means it will be able to travel further and longer than other fisheries vessels have been able to before. This will open new areas of research and investigation.
The commissioning of this new boat is another demonstration that this government is committed to the sustainable development of our fisheries. The Mallarra will be based at Cullen Bay Marina, and is a welcome addition to the government’s fisheries fleet of six vessels.
Under Framing the Future, this government’s blueprint for the development of the Northern Territory, our Confident Culture vision focuses on a healthy, active and enjoyable lifestyle, taking advantage of the unique features the Territory offers. Nothing could be considered more unique and truly Territorian than the passion and commitment of chasing the illusive metre barra on one of our iconic river systems, loading the family into the boat for the day on the Darwin Harbour or just wetting a line at the Nightcliff jetty.
As Territorians we have a natural affinity with our land and waterways. Fishing is part of our culture and identity. We are a population of people who maintain a strong connection with our natural environment. The Territory is a place where some secret fishing spots are sacred and above all else. Lures are as much hard bait as they are objects of beauty and art. In local slang a tinny is a boat, a shady lady is a big female barra caught from Shady Camp on the Mary River, a wet line is a good line and getting a snag on your favourite lure can ruin your entire day. Barramundi is the greatest fish ever to swim and if you have caught a metery, you are a member of a club so exclusive that some Territorians have tattoos to prove it.
The Northern Territory government is proud of the advances we have made to recreational fishing opportunities. We are determined to protect this industry and pastime for future generations. We will build the necessary infrastructure, and support our department of Fisheries in protecting our fish.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of this statement – and also wet a line as soon as possible.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this statement to the House. No doubt those fisheries are an important resource for the Territory, both for our economy and the great lifestyle we all enjoy. As it has been for many thousands of years, fishing and the management of fishery resources continues to be a central and important part of the history, culture and day-to-day life of many Indigenous Territorians.
In 2010 it is estimated more than 35 000 Territory residents and 54 000 visitors fished in the Territory, spending at least $80m in that year alone on recreational fishing and fishing tours.
Most recently, AFANT has noted that recreational fishers spend an average of $1500 per year on fishing goods and services in the Northern Territory, the highest rate in the country. Yearly, $22m is spent on guided fishing in the Northern Territory, and there is direct expenditure on recreational fishing of some $100m per year. A total of 70% of recreational fishing occurs in our regional areas: King Ash Bay on the McArthur River; the Daly River; the Roper River; Dundee Beach; and the Mary River. This sustains so many of our small businesses in those areas. We saw expanding recreational fishing opportunities developed in our time in government in places like Maningrida and on the Gove peninsula. Of course, fishing continues to grow as a pastime, as well as a tourism activity, as more and more people come to enjoy our well-managed fishing resources.
I acknowledge again the importance of fishing to Indigenous Territorians, with much of that fishing activity occurring outside our main centres, and likely uncaptured in the fishing data I have just outlined. Much of the fishing activity of Indigenous Territorians is much more than a pastime; it is about subsistence and is a central part of culture, including links to ceremony and religious belief.
It is a political truism in the Territory that any government that takes its eye off the ball in its support for the fisheries sector or oversees the degradation of our fishing resources, does so at its peril.
I note in his statement the minister has highlighted the implementation of the Recreational Fishery Development Plan as an achievement of the current CLP government. This morning in Question Time the minister said our previous Labor government did nothing and made no decisions regarding fishing during its time in government. Anyone with any history in the NT knows that is total rubbish, and it reflects very sadly on our minister.
If the minister cares, he can type in the words ‘Northern Territory Recreational Fishing Development Plan’ into Google and he will come to that document on the Northern Territory Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries website. Here it is: the Recreational Fishing Development Plan 2012 – 2022, a proud product of the previous Labor government supporting a sustainable fishery and our great Territory lifestyle.
I will provide a brief chronology to correct the public record and the minister’s statement:
I will go on because there was not a lot of fanfare from the government, unfortunately:
The current government:
In the former Labor government we swung our support behind recreational fishing and fishers, and we had no greater champion than the former minister, Kon Vatskalis. We are proud of our achievements in ensuring a sustainable fishery, protecting the rivers, streams and marine environment that sustain our fishers and fisheries, and our investments in better boat ramps and other assets like fishing jetties to improve access to our fisheries.
The Recreational Fishing Development Plan provided a great outline of both the values we need to protect and key strategic issues facing recreational fishing in the Northern Territory.
I was very concerned, once again, about the minister’s comments in this House, placing on the public record and telling Territorians – and I quote from an answer in Question Time today to Mr Higgins’ question to the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries:
Then with intonation:
I can remember the amount of work done, participating as the minister for Construction, and Lands and Planning, having the privilege of working with minister Vatskalis. On the public record, I will give a brief synopsis of some of the things we did, as opposed to Territorians being told Labor did nothing.
We completed a $4m upgrade of the Palmerston boat ramp including a pontoon, toilets, improved lighting and more parking – a land-based fishing jetty that has been built so even families without a boat can enjoy a day out fishing.
Labor delivered the most comprehensive upgrades to boat ramps across the Territory: Saltwater Arm boat ramp and car park; Corroboree Billabong boat ramp and toilets; King Ash Bay boat ramp extension; Milne Inlet boat ramp resurface; Adelaide River car park, wash down and toilets; Nhulunbuy mud wharf boat ramp upgrade; Leaders Creek boat ramp upgrade; Buffalo Creek boat ramp extension; Hardy’s Lagoon new boat ramp and car park; McKenzie Arm sealed drop-offs at both ends of the ramp; Middle Arm boat ramp extension and resurface; fixed the Nightcliff jetty – I remember that, it was a huge job and a popular spot for anglers.
The previous Labor government upgraded the Point Stuart Road for access to the coast, sealed the access to Corroboree Billabong off the Arnhem Highway and upgraded the road to Dundee Beach.
The previous Labor government closed the Finniss River and Bynoe Harbour to commercial barramundi fishing and bought licences back. We commenced the buyback of another three barramundi licences to create commercial barramundi fishery closures, creating an uninterrupted closure from Cape Hotham near Adelaide River mouth to the existing Finniss River closure. We also closed those areas fished by anglers in Chambers and Finke Bays to commercial barramundi fishing.
The previous Labor government protected the Daly River and made it a point it would never dam it, unlike the Country Liberal Party.
The previous Labor government invested in the clearing up of Mount Todd Mine and the site to protect our rivers – an environmental disaster and legacy mine.
The previous Labor government ensured our fisheries are the best managed and healthiest in the world. We ensured our barramundi stocks are sustainable and healthy, which is why it introduced an increase in the limit from two to three barramundi for the Mary River management area near Shady Camp. The previous Labor government rejected calls for wide-scale bans on fishing around the coastline because it was simply not needed. That was a good opportunity to correct the record and set it straight.
Let us return to the minister’s statement because we know this government is inclined to dwell on political fixes in decision-making rather than sound science-based decision-making. That was witnessed in the Mataranka allocations, which were overseen by the same minister. I will quote from the Amateur Fishermen’s Association of the NT Inc’s document titled ‘Your rivers at risk Mataranka – the Tindall fact sheet’:
I remind the House that AFANT was so concerned at the time it called for an immediate halt to any further water allocations and to re-establish water planning processes consistent with the National Water Initiative.
Again I call on the government to ensure appropriate resourcing and solid-based research and monitoring to properly inform future fisheries management decisions.
Today we had news of the end of the long-standing seasonal closure at the Mary River, a change based on science and a conclusion that this restriction can now be relaxed. However, I also call on the government to ensure that fishing activity, as well as local environmental conditions, continue to be properly monitored to ensure the continued health of those fish stocks.
We also know that the lower Mary River catchment is a very important area of barramundi spawning and the growth of juvenile fish in a nursery situation. I urge the government to continue its work of better understanding fish populations, flood dynamics and saltwater intrusion on the lower Mary River floodplain to ensure the continued health of those important fish populations.
The minister bragged in his statement about the closure by the CLP government of both Chambers and Finke Bays to commercial barramundi fishing. We understand this was a popular decision among recreational fishers but the change has to be well managed.
This change left commercial barramundi fishers bewildered and uncertain about the long-term wellbeing of their industry under the CLP government. It left many unanswered questions about the future of the wild-caught barramundi fishery in the Northern Territory. This commercial industry, which includes wild-catch fish and aquaculture, contributes 12.5% of the production value of primary industries in the Northern Territory. The fin fish sector on its own realised $25.7m in production value in 2011-12. That decision-making was rammed through and was not well managed. We look forward to an improved consultative approach to decisions affecting the lives and interests of all Territorians.
Listening to a continual litany of poor CLP decisions, we have to raise the issue and hold this government to account. Mention of the commercial fishers highlights the narrow focus of this statement. If we are talking about fisheries as a whole we also need to consider the needs and impacts of commercial fishers. There was scant mention in the statement or commitment from the minister on how he will balance those interests.
What of the mud crab fishery, with wild catch crustacean production estimated at $8.2m in 2011-12? There was no mention of that resource in this statement.
The minister said his agency is working on a resource sharing framework which will enable evidenced analysis to resolve access and resource attribution issues. It sounds like something Vladimir Putin would say. Good luck to our conscientious public servants working on that document. I fear their work may be in vain, given both the recent and past track record of CLP decision-making.
Similarly, the word ‘environment’ was mentioned once in the context of the importance of the environment to Territorians. There was no serious mention of steps being taken to protect our environment that nurtures and sustains our fisheries resource. This is the balance we talk about on this side of the House.
What about the concerns of AFANT, traditional owners and the broader community? What of AFANT’s concerns expressed to the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia about development of isolated port infrastructure on greenfield sites in the greater Darwin region – aka Glyde Point – that will have significant impact on mangrove habitat, recreational fishing and lifestyle values in the greater Darwin region?
There are concerns about plans for dams. The large Wet Season flows are an essential part of the environment that require the estuary ecosystems of the Top End that drive the productivity and interconnectivity of the entire river system.
I draw the minister’s attention to the AFANT Green Paper Submission to Developing Northern Australia. I will not read it but I will quote some of the paragraph headings, ‘To dam or damn NT rivers’ and ‘Water running out to sea is not wasted.’ That submission is a very interesting read. More headings are: ‘The impact of dam construction on fisheries and river health’ – talking about a special ecosystem of northern Australia; ‘Dams are a barrier to migratory species’; ‘Direct impact on fisheries production and recruitment’; ‘Impact on connectivity of river systems’; ‘Sediment and nutrient transfer’; and ‘Increased resource conflicts and sharing’. These are very important paragraphs that spell out AFANT’s concerns and, once again, reassure all Territorians there needs to be a very healthy balance.
Other community concerns have been raised. The Territory opposition will raise them in responding to the minister’s statement. Spills out of Mount Todd mine potentially affect the Daly River, and there is a need for precautionary arrangements to eliminate or minimise those risks. There are legacy mines, such as Redbank, affecting fish populations in adjacent streams across the Territory. There is Bing Bong iron ore dust affecting marine life on that coastal estuary, an issue brought to the attention of Territorians by the Environment Centre of the Northern Territory, defunded by the CLP. This was in response to the concerns of local traditional owners and the gulf country community, and forced a public statement from the Environmental Protection Authority confirming issues of concern.
There were issues raised by tradition owners and the local community regarding the McArthur River Mine and concerns about their local fish resources. I mention briefly the incredible work traditional owners are doing in raising the consciousness of the community, while also working in partnership with the McArthur River Mine. I give a special mention to a great mate of mine, Keith Rory. I have spoken to Keith on a number of occasions. He is one of the spokespeople in the group driving this education and awareness campaign, a very rational and respectful campaign to engage McArthur River Mining. Keith is emerging as a recognised and acknowledged Indigenous leader in that area and has put together some very good resolutions.
I am fortunate the McArthur River Mine has offered me another briefing. I will be able to talk to them next week. I will be going over the material I have put to this House in the last couple of weeks – the adjournment I made, the letters from constituents – trying to encourage working together to deliver the best results. It is great to see Keith as one of those new leaders emerging in this very important area.
AFANT has also expressed concerns about a number of high readings of lead and other metals in fish and shellfish across the Borroloola gulf region, not just on the mine site. That is what we need to work together on resolving.
AFANT also noted in comments on 23 October that the Department of Mines and Energy has come under focus in the report of the independent mine monitor. It highlighted performance as the regulator and manager of mine sites and operations. I encourage the minister’s departments to work together. I am also calling on the Minister for Health, as we need to take the next step in education and awareness of the community about heavy metal contamination and how it relates to the environment, fish stocks and other edible resources from that area. It is a voice of dissent, but it is a voice interested in resolutions.
The statement ended on a happy note: the continuing support of this government to the marine ranger group. The Territory opposition acknowledges that, but it was not always that way. Traditional owners across the Northern Territory have not forgotten the resistance of the former CLP government to their establishment. Previous CLP administrations resisting land claims, protesting native title rights to fish stocks and being aghast at the notion of local community ranger groups having more say and active involvement in the management of fishing resources resounds in the minds and memories of traditional owners across the Northern Territory.
Thankfully, Labor took note of those concerns and that information both in the NT and federally. They broke through that resistance and supported the development of marine ranger groups and their work in fisheries management. It is good to see the minister acknowledging that in the statement. We are proud of that support and pleased the CLP has taken the blinkers off and can now see the value of supporting these groups. They deserve your support, minister, and that of the government.
The question remains: what does the CLP expect from these groups in relation to their continued support? Will they be kept on a short leash? Will it be support dependent on support for the CLP? Thinking across these issues and the concerns of Indigenous Territorians and other fishers, will the minister see and grasp this great opportunity for working together for all Territorians across the Territory?
The minister is challenged with that great opportunity of the solution to the Blue Mud Bay decision. There was a missed opportunity in this statement to update Territorians on fishing access arrangements following the Blue Mud Bay decision. We know the government has until next month to conclude negotiations with the Northern Land Council and settle access conditions. We know there is still work to be done to conclude an access deal with the Tiwi Land Council, especially access to the northern coast of the Tiwi Islands.
What deals are being done behind closed doors to secure access to areas where long-term recreational fishing access remains unresolved? Will access in any of these areas require permits? Is it true that access to the north coast of the Tiwi Islands is likely to be limited to commercial fishing tours? Minister, we await an update on the conclusion of those negotiations and more detail on the deals being made to secure fishing access.
It is good to finish on an important point, reflecting on the intergenerational issues so our children and their children will also be able to enjoy high-quality fishing experiences in the Territory. It is not just about taking or resource utilisation, it is about sustainable fishing and appreciation of the long-term value of a quality fishery resource. It is about understanding the cultural significance of fish and fishing to many Territorians. It is about good science underpinning sound decisions, a healthy environment sustaining fish populations and respectful support and engagement with all the key interest groups.
I will conclude with a concern that has been raised with me and the Territory opposition, which is the balance between the commercial sector – a very important sector in the Northern Territory – and our recreational fishing sector. There is great concern about a movement from the traditional line and trap commercial methods of fishing to the trawlers. The concern that has been conveyed to me is about the protection and sustainability of the resource that will impact on both sectors, commercial and recreation. I have taken great interest in talking to professional fisherman about the trawler operations using nets and drags that will impact significantly on coral reefs.
There is a new fishing area being explored. Minister, your department is involved in all of this work which relates to the Timor Box. I urge you, once again, to take a great interest in this aspect of sustainability. It would be good for you to update the House on what is happening in this move from the traditional line and trap, the aggregation of the commercial licences, and the utilisation of these larger vessels and large-scale fishing operations using trawlers.
The Northern Territory is in a very unique position in relation to the development of northern Australia. It is not only about our recreational fishers, it is also about our commercial fishers. It is, most importantly, acknowledging and understanding in best-practice science, the unique nature of the ecology and the biodiversity of northern Australia.
I have made a point to talk about the AFANT concerns around damming our wild free-flowing rivers – some of the last wild free-flowing rivers on this continent. I have raised those issues with good faith on behalf of recreational fishers. Their association has gone to great lengths to try to communicate that important point to the CLP government. It would be a great shame if we see a parallel of this rush to cash grab with infrastructure that is not based on best-practice science and sustainability, recognising the unique ecology, environment and biodiversity we all share in northern Australia.
Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to put these points forward in debate tonight.
Mrs FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I support the minister’s statement. Fishing is a quintessential part of the Territory lifestyle and something I spoke about in my maiden speech in this House over two years ago. It was part of my commitment to the people of Drysdale and Territorians that, as a born and bred Territorian, I would protect our unique Territory lifestyle and work out ways to enhance that lifestyle well into the future.
I grew up fishing with my family; it is something my dad and many of my family love to do. My husband does not love it all that much. That is okay, I am too busy to be fishing as much as I used to. If you are not a Territorian who enjoys fishing I can almost guarantee you know someone who does.
Palmerston has developed over those years. I have lived in Palmerston my whole life and have watched it grow. It is not the frontier town it used to be. It is now a large and developing city. That has some positive benefits but also presents limitations to sectors of our Palmerston community. It is my commitment and belief that all Territorians should have access to lifestyle-enhancing and recreational activities that go hand-in-hand with our beautiful lifestyle in the Territory.
Fishing should not be limited to those who can afford boats. We see many boats in the Territory. The minister’s departmental figures will show these days the average boat length is 6 m when it used to be 3 m or 4 m. Many people have the ability to access boats, but not all people. People who do not have that opportunity should be afforded the opportunity to enjoy fishing.
We have excellent boat ramp facilities in the Darwin area and more and more fishing locations and opportunities are being opened up and explored by our government. I thank the minister for that.
Our jetties keep getting better. At Palmerston boat ramp we have just seen two shade structures installed over the jetty. That is great. Thanks to the minister, who supported mine and the member for Blain’s push for that. We know many Palmerston families love going to the Palmerston boat ramp to fish, and now they can do so in full shade, fishing on the low and high tides. That is fantastic. I have been there when fishos have been on the boat ramp. They think it is brilliant and asked why we did not put shade over the whole thing. Minister, maybe we could talk about that next budget round.
Fishing is not only a great recreational activity and family pastime, it is part of our community and lifestyle. It needs to be regulated, where necessary, in bag limits and responding to the science. The minister has the important and difficult job of balancing those regulatory requirements with the freedom and ability for all Territorians to enjoy one of the pastimes nearest and dearest to them.
I am speaking passionately about this. The main reason I wanted to speak tonight is because I have reached the point where I want to publicly talking about a program I am working hard on establishing in Palmerston – the neighbourhood fishing program. This idea came to me after looking at a highly successful and very inspirational program run in Texas in the United States with the same name. If you are interested, google ‘neighbourhood fishing program in Texas’ and I am sure it will come up.
The theory behind that program is that communities are becoming increasingly urbanised – as I mentioned, Palmerston is now sprawling and very large, which makes it more difficult for all Territorians to enjoy a Territory lifestyle. That comes with certain limitations, and people in urban Palmerston may not have a boat or a way to get to the Palmerston boat ramp. I do not know of any bus service that goes to the Palmerston boat ramp, and I am not really sure it is a viable route. However, that does not mean people who want to fish should not enjoy it. Many people in my electorate do not have cars or only have one car and rely on public transport so it is not as easy as saying, ‘We will go to Palmerston jetty and drop a line’. We have to be mindful to provide opportunities for Territorians to enjoy our unique Territory lifestyle. The neighbourhood fishing program would change that. It would make fishing a lot easier, more convenient and, of course, closer to home.
In Texas they have city lakes throughout the state stocked throughout the year with fingerlings so the community can drop a line. People bring chairs, blankets and barbecues. It is wonderful. The YouTube video on the Texas Department of Parks and Wildlife website is fantastic. It gives you goose bumps to see what something as simple as putting fish in a lake can do to bring a community together.
I have the same vision for Palmerston. It could be extended in the Northern Territory but I will be working on it for Palmerston in the first instance. I am already imagining the barbecue areas and Sunday afternoons where people are coming out of their homes and enjoying what it is to be outside and part of a community again.
As I said in my maiden speech, I want to restore some of the moral health of our community, or that sense of community. I work very hard as a local member. I am very focused and purposeful at the grassroots level. I am very passionate and believe we need to start very purposefully and actively working to bring communities together.
Communities are so powerful when they are fighting together as one. I will do everything I can to leave that legacy. When I look back on my time serving Territorians and reflect on benchmarks that I raised in my maiden speech, like this, I want to be able to put a tick next to it and know I worked hard every day to try to bring a sense of community back to Palmerston.
In my view, the pilot of the neighbourhood fishing program should be at Durack Heights, Sanctuary Lakes and Marlow Lagoon. They are the obvious locations in Palmerston. It means residents can catch the bus or walk there and go after school. These locations are very easy to get to and provide an opportunity for sustainable recreation in people’s back yards.
I use the word ‘sustainable’ very purposefully. This is not just about recreation and the act of fishing. It teaches young people and everyday Territorians so many more skills, including sustainability, biodiversity and those sorts of things. It has a broader purpose than its immediate and most apparent one of recreation.
I believe local businesses would be very responsive to this. I know Frenchy, who has the Tackle Box at Durack Shell Service Station, would be very happy to have the extra business. You can stop at Frenchy’s place then go to Durack Lakes to spend the afternoon fishing.
I also imagine the Palmerston Game Fishing Club would be very responsive to this. It has a fantastic and energetic junior’s program and this would fall into line with many of the club’s core values.
I will be knocking on the door of my good friend Geoff Smith, who is the CEO of CIC Australia, which is developing Durack Heights. It has already made a tremendous commitment to the Palmerston community. The Charles Darwin University lake is perfectly situated between Durack, Charles Darwin University and Durack Heights. That lake could very quickly be populated with fish. CIC Australia is developing, with the City of Palmerston, a community centre right on that lake. I am already seeing huge synergies with the community space. That is just to name a few.
The Texas program is designed to recruit new anglers and get more people into fishing. It is about the perfect outdoor experience with fishing at its centre. It sounds very clichd but I will say it anyway, if you teach a child to fish you can feed them for a lifetime. These are fundamental Territory skills.
I am not just looking at skills development, education and the unique Territory lifestyle; I have spoken to the minister for Parks and Wildlife before about protecting our Territory culture. Over time, if we do not foster our cultures, they can very easily disappear. It is not just about people from other nations coming into the Territory and maintaining their sense of culture from their home nation, it is about Territorians maintaining their culture as well. As we change and grow that culture – challenge is the wrong word, but if we are not there protecting what it is to be a Territorian, it can very easily be lost in growth and development.
My vision is for a sustainable, desirable species to be introduced in various sizes into the selected waterways. In Texas they use catfish. I do not know why they love catfish, all I know is Territorians do not. I do not suggest we do that. Instead, we should use something a little more appropriate like barramundi, tarpon or saratoga. It is great fishing, some of it is great eating and others are just for recreation and sport.
There are opportunities for schools to get involved, as well as for school excursions. Parents can give children opportunities they might not otherwise have. All those fathers who do not have boats can take their sons and daughters there and be just as excellent fathers as ones with boats. It opens up opportunities and puts everyone on an equal footing to be able to enjoy our lifestyle, live the life we love to live and that we want young people in the Territory to grow up living.
I have already seen kids fishing at Sanctuary Lakes, which warms my heart. A couple of weeks ago I saw a couple of kids sitting on the side of the lake catching fish with a little piece of bread and a tiny hook and dropping them back in. I could not resist speaking to them; I asked them why they were doing it. They said it was fun, it was a nice afternoon and they loved doing it. It blew me away. I was so heartened, proud and pleased to see those young people, who would have been all of eight or nine years old. They were not sitting inside on a weekend playing the PlayStation, but were out enjoying our environment. That, to me, is what it is all about.
A lot of work needs to be done on sustainability and social and environmental impacts. However, I do not want to dwell on and talk about why we cannot do it. I want to focus on why we can and work out how we can.
I know the minister will be excited by this. Minister, if you are not excited, get on board, we will take this ride together. I have spent a lot of my time in the last two years banging on the Minister for Health’s door about Palmerston hospital. That is well and truly under way now, so I can pull back a bit from that. I have been banging on the Minister for Transport’s door about Tiger Brennan Drive, and I can relax a bit about that too; I know it is all going well. They are two of my major issues which I feel I can step away from.
Minister for Fisheries, you are my next target. Congratulations! We will go on a journey together. Seriously though, you are doing a fantastic job. You have already shown a commitment to Palmerston. I want us to walk this journey and work out how we can establish a neighbourhood fishing program to show Palmerston people how serious we are about our commitment to them and our Territory lifestyle.
Madam Speaker, I commend the statement to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I present to the House the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Tribunal Annual Report 2013-14. This is not a long annual report. Whilst most of the work is done by the Department of Health the tribunal rests under the Department of the Attorney-General.
There are a couple of things to note in the report, namely the numbers that appear on page 9. The total number of applications received and hearings conducted by the tribunal is 435, which in many respects demonstrates the tragedy of alcohol in our community. That led to 208 residential treatment orders being ordered by the tribunal, as well as a number of community treatment orders and release orders also being made.
This report demonstrates that alcohol continues to be a problem in the community. However, as the Northern Territory government, we have, in recent times, been rolling out policies that have dramatically reduced the effects of alcohol in the community. This is evidenced by reductions in crime across the Northern Territory, particularly where we have seen the operations of the TBLs. The TBLs complement the Alcohol Protection Orders we have issued and the works of mandatory alcohol treatment.
This is all part of the government’s construct to make the drinker responsible for their conduct, not the community responsible for the drinker’s conduct, which was the policy of the former Labor government. We are proud of the achievements we have made in this area. It has set the Northern Territory government well along the path to reduce crime in our community. The reduction in property crime, of course, has well exceeded targets and, frankly, exceeded our expectations. Moreover, even now we are seeing reductions of personal crime which are nothing shy of astonishing. In the Tennant Creek area since the beginning of the year, we have seen a two-thirds reduction in the crime reported in that community.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, I lay on the table this annual report and encourage all members to read it, in light of all of the other improvements we have made in alcohol policy in the Northern Territory.
TABLED PAPER
First Annual Report of the Department of Community Services
Mrs PRICE (Community Services): Madam Speaker, it gives me pleasure to table the first annual report for the Department of Community Services which was formed in September 2013. This report showcases the achievements made by my department in the development of remote regional communities across the Territory in 2013-14.
Let me talk about the diversity of functions within the department and how we are working across these functions with our partners to unlock the potential of remote and regional Northern Territory. My department is committed to making a difference to regional and remote Northern Territory through its functions and initiatives. My department works to support a thriving economy and safe and secure communities by coordinating strategic service delivery and policy programs in a structured way.
My department is responsible for securing government infrastructure through long-term leases. Government can now be assured it will not be alienated from this infrastructure, with 788 leases secured to date. This team is also working towards mainstreaming land administration through our $7m Cadastral survey program.
Significantly, my department hosted the delegation of ministers from Sarawak to learn from the way we are dealing with the development of communally titled land.
My department is making a real difference in homelands and outstations, particularly with the introduction and roll-out of Homelands Extra allowance.
We are partnering with 37 service providers to deliver services to over 500 homelands. We all know essential services are in a critical condition in many communities. My department supports infrastructure development activities that stimulate economic growth and job creation while ensuring adequate essential services capacity. A total of 178 essential service operators were employed through Indigenous Essential Services in 2013-14.
My department leads a whole-of-government approach to coordinate and deliver services to remote communities, working with the Australian government to deliver agreed outcomes under several national partnership agreements.
Interpreting and Translating Services NT continues to provide a critical service and has now introduced protocols for interpreters working in the legal field, and standards for lawyers and judges working with interpreters.
I am proud of the work my department is doing in community engagement. The First Circles initiative is a new model of engagement that identifies mentors and supports emerging leaders in remote communities.
The Men’s Policy Unit is unique to the Territory. There is no equivalent men’s policy unit or function in any other state or territory in Australia. This makes the Northern Territory the first jurisdiction in Australia to create a male-specific policy unit.
The Office of Women’s Advancement is engaging with women across the Territory, nationally and internationally to develop and deliver programs, policies and activities to support gender equality, and a safe and supportive environment, and to encourage women to reach their full potential in the workplace.
Madam Speaker, I acknowledge and thank the Chief Executive of this department, Mike Chiodo, and his team for their commitment to improving the social and financial wellbeing of Territorians in regional and remote communities through these programs. My department is well positioned to build on these achievements in 2014-15 and further improve delivery of our services and programs, and support the development of remote and regional Northern Territory into the future.
Mr CHANDLER (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table the Environment Protection (Beverage Containers and Plastic Bags) Act 2011 annual report for 2013-14. The Environment Protection (Beverage Containers and Plastic Bags) Act 2011 was passed in the Legislative Assembly in February 2011. It provides the legal framework for the container deposit legislation and regulation of single-use lightweight non-biodegradable plastic bags.
The container deposit scheme commenced in the Northern Territory in January 2012 and the plastic bag ban came into effect in September 2011. It is a requirement under section 92 of the act that I prepare a report about the administration of the act which is tabled in the Legislative Assembly.
In August 2013, all states and territories and the Commonwealth agreed to permanently exempt the container deposit scheme from the requirements of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992, resulting in the Northern Territory receiving a permanent exemption. This meant all regulated containers had to be approved under the container deposit scheme before sale in the Northern Territory.
On 14 August 2013, the container deposit scheme returned to an industry-run scheme. Over 63.8 million containers were returned to container deposit scheme coordinators during 2013-14. This resulted in an annual return rate of 41%. Collection depots paid out over $6.6m in redemptions to Territorians over the year. These results were down by approximately 5% in 2012-13. This may be due to a number of collection depots temporarily closing to regenerate or reinvigorate arrangements with coordinators following the short period the NT government was funding the scheme. During this period, access was limited in Alice Springs, Tennant Creek and Elliott. Further to this, in quarter three of 2012-13, there was an unusually high return rate as consumers were concerned about the scheme not continuing.
Seven infrastructure grants were awarded in 2013-14. They provide one-off funding for businesses and organisations to purchase equipment or infrastructure for establishing collection depots or collection points throughout the Northern Territory.
After two rounds of industry consultation in early 2014 an amendment to the act commenced on 30 June 2014. The key changes under the amended act included increasing the enforcement potential of the act, ensuring collection depots are open to the public, ensuring all CDS participants establish their own contractual arrangements and reducing the number of categories containers are split into at the collection depot level. It is expected the amendments will bring improved efficiency to the scheme and maximise community, business and environmental benefits. These will be implemented over the next 16 months.
During 2013-14, two reviews of the first two years of the act’s administration were completed: (1) review of the containers regulated under the container deposit scheme and (2) Northern Territory plastic ban review. These reports are available on the Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority website.
The plastic bag ban has also indicated some relatively positive results. Based on the Keep Australia Beautiful litter index, there has been an estimated 24% reduction in the number of lightweight plastic bags in the litter stream since the commencement of the ban. I am not convinced at this stage, given the evidence, that the plastic bag ban – part of this legislation – is improving things in the waste stream. I am talking about the amount of plastic going to our waste stream.
I intend to see what we, as a government, can do to improve the measurement of plastic. I recall the minister at the time, Karl Hampton, introduced this legislation to reduce the amount of plastic going landfill. I am unconvinced at this stage that we are meeting that target.
Again, it is not about throwing out the legislation like we did with the cash for cans, it is about finding ways to improve the legislation to meet its intent. There is nothing wrong with the intent, but I am yet to be convinced, with the evidence I have in front of me, that we are seeing a reduction in plastic into our landfill sites.
I put on the record again that the winners in this battle are the big businesses like Coles and Woollies which are charging 15c for every plastic bag people purchase when they are buying their goods and services.
We also know that more heavy duty plastics are now going to landfill because as people do not have the lightweight throwaway plastic bags, they are turning to buying more heavy duty plastic bags for their waste, whether it is to wrap a nappy in, put their potato or prawn shells in or whatever it is. That has an impact on the cost of living, as the Chief Minister said.
I want some deeper analysis, including talking to our local governments to find out what impact this legislation has had on their landfill. If it is a positive one, they will get every bit of support they need. If it is not, we need to look at ways we can improve the legislation.
Mr CHANDLER (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to; report printed.
Mr CHANDLER (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report and I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later time.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I table a report on the entitlements of Assembly members in Determination No 1 of 2014 and seek leave to continue my remarks at a later date.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
Mr BARRETT (Blain): Madam Speaker, I table the Subordinate Legislation Publications Committee Report of Ministerial Correspondence on Subordinate Legislation and Publications for 2014.
Rules, regulations and bylaws affect people in their day-to-day lives. It is, therefore, important the Assembly maintains a sufficient level of public scrutiny to ensure it keeps within the purpose and intention of the laws under which they are made and do not unduly affect people’s rights.
Since the committee last reported in November 2013 it has examined 36 pieces of subordinate legislation. As part of that scrutiny, the committee sought the advice of its independent legal counsel, Professor Ned Aughterson.
The committee subsequently wrote to responsible ministers regarding concerns it had with 10 regulations. This report places those letters on the public record and allows interested persons to see the clarifications regarding the intended operation of the regulations or undertakings to correct any errors as provided by ministers.
In addition to its examination of subordinate legislation, the committee is also responsible for monitoring the statutory reporting requirements of government entities. For example, under the Public Sector Employment and Management Act and the Financial Management Act all Northern Territory government departments are required to present annual reports and audited financial statements to the appropriate minister for tabling in the Assembly.
Independent officers such as the Auditor-General, Ombudsman and Information Commissioner, statutory authorities, government owned corporations and a number of other regulatory bodies are also required to submit annual reports, audited financial statements and inquiry reports to the Speaker or relevant minister for tabling, pursuant to their respective enabling legislation.
Of the 106 government entities the committee currently monitors, there was one instance where it was necessary for the committee to follow up an outstanding report with the minister.
On behalf of the committee, I thank ministers for their responses to the committee’s queries. However, during the current reporting period I note the timeliness of some ministerial responses has been a matter of concern to the committee. The committee provides a quality assurance role for the Assembly after subordinate legislation is made and enforced. It is, therefore, necessary that its examination be prompt. Also, standing orders require the committee to report on any significant concerns warranting an instrument’s disallowance within 12 sitting days of the instrument’s tabling. For the committee to perform the functions required by the Assembly it requires a timely response when it raises an issue.
I also acknowledge the significant contribution made by Professor Aughterson and thank him for his diligence in advising the committee. I also acknowledge the efforts and bipartisan approach of committee members in seeking to ensure a high standard of rules and regulations in the Northern Territory and compliance with the legislative reporting requirements.
Mr BARRETT (Blain): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to; report printed.
Mrs FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table the report of the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee on its consideration of the activities, performance, practices and financial management of the Power and Water Corporation, Territory Generation and Jacana Energy, with reference to those corporations’ Statements of Corporate Intent 2014-15. Pursuant to the committee’s terms of reference, I also table answers to questions taken on notice.
This report identifies member’s key areas of interest or concern as reflected in the lines of questioning during hearings. This year’s Government Owned Corporations Committee hearings were the first since the separation of the Power and Water Corporation into three corporations. The committee allowed two hours to hear from each of the corporations. The hearings were held separately from the Estimates Committee this year because the new corporations had not commenced at that time.
The committee’s hearings provided a valuable opportunity to hear the directions Power and Water, Territory Generation and Jacana Energy are taking following the structural separation of the Power and Water Corporation, and for members to question the chairs of the boards. I thank the three board chairs, Ken Clarke, David De Silva and Noel Faulkner, Chief Executive Officers John Baskerville, Tim Duignan and Stuart Pearce, as well as their staff for the assistance they provided the committee. I also thank members of the committee for their constructive and cooperative approach to the hearings.
Mrs FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to; report printed.
Mrs FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be noted and seek leave to continue my remarks at a later time.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table two travel reports from the members for Nightcliff and Nelson.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
I realise it is a late hour, but nevertheless I am compelled to speak on a matter I found both irritating and annoying earlier today.
It has become a habit of the Labor Party to start amassing a list of people they will execute. They publicly name those people, both in this House and in other places. Should they ever come to power, that list now ranges across the public service. I have heard the Leader of the Opposition name a number of individuals over the last few days, and they have even put a price on what they think the hit list is worth; I think the figure of some $3m was bandied around. The public service should be beyond reach.
What impels me to talk about this matter was an allegation made by the member for Johnston, directed towards me, in relation to his wife being fired by me. I place categorically on the record that I had no involvement whatsoever or interfered in any shape or form with the termination of the employment of the member for Johnston’s wife. Whilst I might be capable of being short-tempered or even irritable in this place from time to time, I am not a spiteful human being. I resent the implication, quite frankly, from the member for Johnston. It is just not the way I operate as a minister of the Crown.
Member for Johnston, I would have preferred to deal with this matter discreetly. I asked to talk to him privately at the back of the Chamber; he has subsequently refused to speak with me, leaving no option but for me to defend my honour and the principles by which I govern in the public domain. There is no way I have involved myself with the termination of his wife or any other public servant, and I place that firmly on the record. I would have preferred not to do it in the public domain, unfortunately the member for Johnston has left me no choice with his refusal to speak to me privately about the issue …
Mr Vowles: My wife, who has a lot of time on her hands.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin, you have the call.
Mr ELFERINK: I do not, and this government does not, engage in hit lists. Clearly, should the Labor Party ever form government in this jurisdiction, it will. It shows the vast chasm between them and their style of governance with hit lists and black lists and those sorts of things, compared to this side of the House.
Mr Vowles: You are not in control of your department.
Mr ELFERINK: I can tell you the member for Johnston is simply wrong. I hear his interjections now he has ambled back into this place. I simply say to him that if he engages in repeating those allegations outside of this place – and I invite him to do so – then he will be hearing from my lawyers.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, this evening I pay tribute to the late Mr Pedro Yap, a widely-respected and distinguished Territorian. Pedro passed away on 18 September surrounded by his loving family.
Pedro was a businessman, diplomat, interpreter, philanthropist and devoted family man. He was born in East Timor in 1926, one of 13 children born to a Chinese father and a Timorese mother. Pedro was the fifth child but showed such great business acumen as a young man that his father trusted him to manage the family’s business affairs.
Pedro was well known in all sectors of the Timor community, being fluent in Portuguese, Tetum, Japanese and three Chinese languages. In recognition of his potential and community influence, the Portuguese authorities appointed Pedro as the Honorary Secretary of the Association of Commercial Agriculture and Industry in Timor.
The Yap family migrated to Darwin in 1978 to settle. Through hard work and acumen, Pedro Yap built up successful and thriving businesses. In 1979, Pedro was instrumental in establishing the NT Timor Chinese Association. In 1994, he established the NT Hakka Association. Pedro was recognised in our multicultural and business communities for his generosity, hard work and concern for others.
Above all, Pedro Yap was a family man. His loving wife, children and grandchildren were his great priority in life.
In a moving eulogy delivered in St Mary’s Cathedral on 25 September, Pedro’s son Henry summed up his father’s family devotion with these words:
Madam Speaker I hope there will be no objection if I seek leave to incorporate Pedro Yap’s eulogy into the Parliamentary Record.
Leave granted.
Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I thank the members of parliament for that leave.
I will always remember Pedro Yap’s wise counsel, his generosity and support in my roles as both the member for Karama and as a Cabinet minister in the Labor government. I am certain honourable members on both sides of this Assembly have been the recipients of Pedro’s sound advice and generosity.
I know all honourable members will join me in paying tribute to Pedro’s lifelong achievements and his contribution to the community in East Timor and the Northern Territory. I express my deepest sympathy to Pedro’s loving wife Emelia, son Henry, daughters Angelina, Margaret and Sophia, his 10 grandchildren and devoted daughter-in-law Susanna. We have lost a truly wonderful Territorian. May the late Pedro Yap rest in peace.
On a separate note, it is with disappointment I heard the ridiculous comments the Leader of Government Business made at the start of the adjournment. There is no Labor hit list or black list. Actions speak louder than words, and Territorians could see the actions of Labor when we came into government in 2001. We did not behave in the manner in which Territorians saw the CLP government behave when it came to power in 2012.
The allegations made by the Leader of Government Business are truly abhorrent. They go against our core values and are ridiculous. Maybe his conscience started to struggle with the knowledge that unfair dismissals have occurred under his watch, including the sacking of the member for Johnston’s tremendous wife.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I do not know how the Leader of the Opposition can say what she just did with a straight face. I do not know how she lies straight in bed.
We all know what happened in 2001 when Labor was elected and every person who was a known supporter of the CLP was summarily executed – I mean that figuratively, not literally – from their positions within the senior contract ranks of public service, boards and committees. Everywhere you looked the government positions bled CLP. That was because of the attitude of the Labor government as it came to power sweeping through and clearing out what they perceived as anyone who might stand in their way or oppose their philosophy or way of thinking.
For the Leader of the Opposition to push back as she just has on the member for Port Darwin stinks of hypocrisy in its highest order. She has no credibility in this House when it comes to talking about matters relating to honesty and the way they conducted themselves as a government through 2001 to 2012. With that said, I will move on to the rather nice subject I wanted to talk about tonight.
It is 30 October and we have just 18 days left to get UGLY. For those who do not know what I am talking about, it is in relation to fundraising for leukaemia, lymphoma, myeloma and other blood disorders. It is a campaign to raise funds for those disorders. UGLY stands for Understanding Generous Likeable You. It is a most worthy cause to get behind and is very well supported across this country.
Every day, on average, 31 Australians are diagnosed with some of those blood cancers and disorders I have mentioned. Treatment times for blood cancers can take from several months to years, and families can often find themselves crippled by mounting financial pressures. It is a very tough time for those people.
In general terms, accommodation can be where help is the most welcome for people and their families who have been afflicted by blood disorders of that nature. I refer to the leukaemia.org.au website. Every $80 raised equals one night’s accommodation for a family member who has someone being treated for one of those blood disorders. You can see it is an extremely important cause.
This year’s campaign commenced on 1 October and is due to wind up on 17 November. We do not have long to get behind and support it. This campaign has been running since 2008 and has been described as the Leukaemia Foundation’s quirkiest campaign to get people motivated to support this very worthy cause and charity. I encourage everyone to get involved. With only 18 days and a target for this year of $1.4m, I wish the Leukaemia Foundation every bit of luck.
On that note, on Saturday just gone in Katherine there was an UGLY fundraiser held at the Silver Screen Caf. I have known Katherine to be a very generous community over the time I have been the local member. I would not like to hazard a guess at how much money is raised annually in Katherine through charity events, but I suspect it has to be somewhere in the vicinity of a couple of hundred thousand dollars. That is amazing coming from a small community of 10 000 people.
This event on Saturday night at the Silver Screen Caf was very well supported. There was pretty much standing room only with not too many seats left. It was very well supported by the local business community and local people. I acknowledge a few people and businesses who were involved who donated goods or in-kind support. There was Whitehouse Furnishers Retravision, Rod & Rifle Tackleworld, Mensland, Katherine Cinema 3, Eastside Mini Mart, Target Country – Katherine, Katherine Bendigo Bank, The Top Saddlery and Bush Boutique, Home Timber & Hardware, Katherine Mitre 10, Jim and Maureen King, Jodie Lock, Cicada Lodge, Nitmiluk Tours, Betta Electrical, Murray Pest Control, TBM Installations, Gallop-Through-Time Gallery & Framing, Stuart Hotel, Duncan Electrical, Short and Sweet Home Services, CJ’s Beauty Centre, the Katherine Club Inc, of course UGLY, the Leukaemia Foundation itself and the Silver Screen Caf. All those individuals and businesses made donations for the dinner, auction, raffles and other games and fundraising activities held on the night.
In particular, I mention the Silver Screen Caf and Duane Barclay and his staff who put on a fantastic meal for all of us. It was a sensational night. We had a ball and, at the same time, raised funds for a very worthy cause.
I also mention a young lady by the name of Charley Anning who put this event together. Charley is a young lady who has lived in Katherine for a very long time with her family. I know some of her family members and can assure you Charley is anything but ugly. She is a beautiful young lady – smart, dedicated and devoted to making Katherine a better place. I commend her for the work she did to bring this event to Katherine.
On the night a total of $11 213 was raised. That is another sensational effort by the people of Katherine, all the businesses who supported it and the people who came along. It is the people who come along to these events who stick their hands in their pockets. They are the ones who pay $100 a head for dinner and bid on the auction items. Yours truly bought a couple of auction items and some great things – a beautiful cheese board made by a local artisan and a big framed display print of a rock band that goes back to my era. Some of the young people would know The Angels. I will find a place on a wall for that. It was a wonderful night and I congratulate Charley on the work she did to put the event together, and everyone who came along and were involved.
The other people I mention in the context of the UGLY fundraising effort are Dallas and Belinda from Emerald Springs. Over the course of the last few years we know Belinda has been unwell. Nonetheless, she and Dallas have worked tirelessly to run UGLY events at Emerald Springs. For a couple of years running they were the highest fundraisers of any single entity for the UGLY cause in Australia. When you get people like Dallas and Belinda, who are so keen to help and be involved, and the people who go along, that is what makes these events so successful.
It was a pleasure to go to the event and to speak about it. Katherine is such a generous community it will keep giving to great events like the UGLY fundraiser held on Saturday night.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I was privileged recently to be introduced by my wife, Dawn, to Rick Underdown and his wife. Rick Underdown was born in Tennant Creek Hospital in 1947. He and his lovely wife had returned to Tennant Creek to explore that early period in his life and the community, which they certainly did. The Underdown family is also a famous pioneering family in Alice Springs. It was great to meet Rick and his wife and share a contemporary story of Tennant Creek, as well as his great family memories of that place.
In relation to Tennant Creek, I will quote from a media release from the Minister for Children and Families and the Minister for Disability Services entitled ‘Territory carers’ dedication and support recognised at awards ceremony’:
27 October 2014
One of the Northern Territory winners in the category of Foster and Kinship Carer was Sam Cameron from Tennant Creek:
I quote from another media release from the Minister for Health, from 24 October 2014, entitled ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Practitioners Excellence Awards’:
I offer big congratulations to the winners. I especially mention, in the Other Finalist Certificates of Encouragement section, Tony Duggie, Canteen Creek Clinic and Central Australian Primary Healthcare Services. Well done, Tony, on a great job and to all those Aboriginal Health Practitioners who are on the front line making a difference in improving Indigenous health outcomes.
Another great new story was the Barkly mobile preschool receiving a national early childhood award. I quote from the HESTA Early Childhood Education and Care Awards media release of 8 September 2014 entitled ‘Barkly mobile preschool receives national early childhood award’:
Congratulations, Doris. Keep up the good work because we all know early childhood intervention is the main intervention that will change outcomes and turn them around.
Barkly Regional Arts is a celebrated arts organisation in the region. Barkly Regional Arts recently attended the National Remote Indigenous Media Festival held in Cape York where it won a number of awards: Best Innovation in Online Media and Best Training and Professional Development. MEDIA MOB’s Sean Bahr-Kelly was awarded Best Visual Recording for Camera Work on the Eleanor Dixon ABC Heywire Video Postcard.
Barkly Regional Arts representatives presented a case study on the live web streaming projects the organisation had been doing over recent years and the positive impact it had on community arts and employment in the region. Specific mention was given to Barkly Regional Arts for its comprehensive and professional training programs. Special acknowledgement was also given to the quality and volume of online media that Barkly Regional Arts produces.
An example is from the National Rural Health Alliance. I quote from its media release on 13 October 2014, ‘Connecting Mental Health and Anti-Poverty Weeks’.
A special shout out to Sean Bahr-Kelly for his incredible work on that project produced collaboratively by Barkly Regional Arts in the Northern Territory and the National Rural Health Alliance extreme art in its Anti-Poverty Week project.
I will also talk about the Arlpwe Art & Culture Centre at Ali Curung owned by the Arlpwe Artists Aboriginal Corporation. One of its latest projects is bush tucker and bush medicine garden beds at the centre. It is an incredible project that is developing before our eyes. It is important to recognise the staff and management of the arts centre and this incredible project that encourages participation in visual arts activities, as most of the artists use bush tucker and bush medicine as their subjects.
The centre promotes, sustains and shares culture and cultural tourism as the best option for increased employment opportunities in remote Australia. It develops and educates audiences, school groups, tour groups and various visitors, both national and international. It encourages and develops community leadership and role models as tour guides, providing opportunity for training, personal development and leadership. It promotes economic development in communities with the sale of garden produce. It raises the profile of the Indigenous visual arts industry, art centres and artists. It supports Indigenous employment, strengthening the business model with such developments and diversifying the business model income stream.
I acknowledge Ian and Judy Grieve for their incredible work. The Arlpwe Arts Aboriginal Corporation goes from strength to strength in the diversity of its projects. The latest project it is undertaking is a recycling project. Ian is a master potter, an artist, and will also be resurrecting a kiln and moving to a gas-fired kiln, so we will see some pottery as well.
If anybody is interested in some of the best art and artefacts in the Central Australia region, please visit Ali Curung. Follow the signs and take your credit card with you because you will not be disappointed. In the lead-up to the festive season in 2014, I encourage you to support the art centre and purchase the rellies some excellent high-quality traditional art and artefacts.
Mrs FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, on 20 August this year I spoke about the exciting news of Palmerston Rugby Union Club reaching Level 3 accreditation in the Good Sports Program, the first sporting club in the Northern Territory to do so. I am thrilled to share more great news that the Palmerston Rugby Union Club, just three days ago, was announced as the Northern Territory Good Sports Club of the Year. This is a great achievement for one of Palmerston’s oldest sporting clubs which prides itself on providing a family-friendly environment for all to enjoy. Its club culture is exemplary, and I am exceedingly proud of the club’s members and volunteers. I congratulate Ben Blyton and the committee and club for receiving this award, which is an affirmation of its positive work in promoting healthier attitudes towards alcohol consumption.
On behalf of the people of Drysdale and my parliamentary colleagues, I congratulate the Palmerston Rugby Union Club and I seek to table a copy of the media release issued by Good Sports making the announcement.
Leave granted.
Mrs FINOCCHIARO: I now continue recounting the story of the life of Ann Brown.
Ann drove to Frewena and then to Alice Springs because it was closer. She spent a few days in Tennant Creek and drove up a hill to see what Tennant Creek had to offer. At that point, Ann thought she would stay for a couple of days. Once Ann looked over the hill she was a little disappointed at what she found and was unsure if she could fill a full two days.
Whilst in Alice Springs, Ann worked at Alice Springs Hospital. She recalled how lovely the staff were there. The year was 1968 and Ann recalls the 12-hour shifts in the gastro ward of Alice Springs Hospital. She also recalls the sick babies they would have on IV fluids, and approximately 30 Indigenous babies every night needed to be cared for. Ann is proud of the fact she never lost of child. They all got better and returned to the community; however, sadly some of the children would come back.
Ann told me Alice Springs was the first place she saw drunks beat each other badly. She witnessed broken arms, broken legs, broken skulls and major traumatic injuries coming into the hospital. Ann also worked in the tuberculosis ward at Alice Springs Hospital.
Ann recalled the flies in the Australian outback and how they would get behind her glasses and irritate her eyes. She also recalls how cold it was in June and July and that the nurses would sleep around wood fires in the nurses home as it was too cold to sleep in their beds. They would lie in sleeping bags, sharing a big flagon of port. Ann did not like port but appreciated the warmth.
One of Ann’s fondest memories was of the Haasts Bluff horse race. She recalled the dirt track and commented that there was heaps of dirt everywhere. There were two races with four horses in each race. Ann was amazed at how little horse racing was happening, but how much festivity, drinking and burnt sausages there were on offer. She remembers that weekend as being quite an experience.
Whilst in Alice Springs Ann contracted Hepatitis A. Ann spent six weeks in the nurses’ quarters trying to recover. At that time the hospital refused to pay nurses sick leave so Ann was unpaid for six weeks. They did, however, supply food but the smell of it was almost too much to bear. Following this illness, Ann decided to go to Darwin.
Ann was employed at the old Darwin Hospital at Myilly Point. The nurses’ accommodation was air conditioned and nice. However, she noted the hospital was full of drunk people beating each other. The hospital hosted movies outside every Wednesday night and they were often the latest cowboy movies. There was a big grassed area and a screen, and the nurses pushed all the patients out onto the grass so they could enjoy it.
At the old Darwin Hospital Ann worked in obstetrics, gynaecology and accident and emergency. She reminisced how it was such a well-run hospital. After a while Ann planned to move to Western Australia but that was not to happen.
Skipping forward 10 years in Ann’s life, she was now married, had two children, two step-children and was a stay-at-home mum. In 1979, Ann started as a community health nurse after doing a refresher course in nursing. In that role she looked after all age groups of people from babies to adults, and did palliative care at the home, school visits and health promotions.
At that time the community health nurses worked out of demountables in Anula. Ann spent 25 years as a community health nurse and found the profession and the entire experience rewarding professionally and socially. She recalled the experiences and skills gained from her time as a community health nurse and the unique situations she experienced.
Ann told me nowhere else in Australia had this high level of service and care; they were the best in Australia. She commented on the professionalism of the community health nurse staff. Ann said that a community health nurse was a nurse with all the answers. Ann was the go-to nurse and helped people with their issues and how to come to terms with the changes in their lives.
In 1982, Ann and the community nurse services moved to Casuarina Plaza. There were 14 nurses to promote health services from Nightcliff to Berrimah for the northern suburbs. At that time, a community health nurse was recognised as a helping agent and they helped everyone with everything from bathing, occupational therapy, medication, healthy lifestyle – literally any and every health aspect was within their purview.
It came to the point where people realised that these nurses could not know all the specialist areas in the entire health spectrum. The nurses did the best they could with the knowledge they had. It was a relief eventually when the government brought in nurses with expertise in particular areas, such as respiratory nurses to treat asthma sufferers.
You could see Ann’s pride when she talked about the rapport the community health nurses had with their patients. Her comment to me was that it was priceless. Friendships were made between nurses and clients and the relationships were very strong.
One funny story Ann told me was when she had a homeless client who asked her if she liked chicken. Ann said yes. The next day the homeless man came to the clinic with a live chicken and left it with her. The poor man had no idea that this was an inappropriate gift, but Ann accepted it somewhat surprised. Luckily, Annette, one of the other nurses, took the chicken home to live with her chickens.
Another funny story was when a client gave her half-a-dozen eggs. Ann was very grateful for the eggs. However, over the course of the day she could hear a squeaking noise from her desk. Ann looked at the eggs and four chickens had hatched. Poor Annette had to take them home also.
In the mid-1980s Ann had a two-seater Suzuki Hatch she would do her nurse visits in. She would tend to the disabled with the daily bathing and hygiene services. One of her clients was a caretaker at the sewage ponds. She was looking after the client for over a week. One day she saw a huge crocodile on the tiny road that was bigger than her car. She had to drive very carefully between the crocodile and the sewage ponds. She excitedly told the patient about her discovery, only to be told the croc had been there all week. Ann was quite shocked that she had never noticed it.
Ann recounted the good rapport she had with many Aboriginal families living in urban housing and hostels. Ann spent many hours building up trust so she could teach the families about diabetes, scabies and living in an urban community.
When Ann would go to someone’s house – if, for example, someone had been diagnosed with diabetes – she would sit on the grass with the women to teach them and conduct blood sugar tests which would leave a little bit of blood on the person. She laughed when she recalled that the green ants would be walking through her patient’s blood.
In 1992, community care centres evolved with an emphasis on primary healthcare. Mission statements, goals and strategies were all developed so she could show that the current issues with health and wellbeing in the community would be addressed. Accreditation was not achieved until 10 years later.
On Ann’s birthday in August 1999 she came to work and found a computer on her desk. These were the first computers introduced, and nurses did not know what to do with them. The whole gamut of academic knowledge of programs overcame the necessity to have a laugh and keep trying to bring health promotions to the forefront. In Ann’s view, everyone became too focused on trying to work the damn computer.
One of the highlights of Ann’s career and, indeed, life, was in September 1999 when the humanitarian crisis in East Timor broke out. Ann recalls seeing horrific images of what was happening in East Timor on the television. All in Darwin knew what was going on there. When 2000 refugees from East Timor were evacuated to Darwin, a large network of people were pulled together to put up a tent city at the Greek Orthodox Club on McMillans Road. Everything had to be established for the refugees: electricity, telephone, toilet and shower blocks, tents, bedding, clothing, shoes, toiletries, baby food, baby supplies, medical and nursing care.
Ann’s community health nurses were rostered on for different shifts to assist the refugees at all times. The community health nurses were allocated a large room which they turned into a first aid station that was full of partition walls, trestle tables, dressings, medications, baby bottles of milk, drinking water and assessment and treatment equipment. A triage area was set up to assess over 1800 refugees. Ann recalls that approximately 50% were very sick and all of them were dehydrated. It was three weeks of organised chaos – or maybe just chaos – in which the community health nurses had to try to assess, treat, feed and clothe all of the refugees.
The main ailments of the refugees were tuberculosis, malaria, gastro, shigella, campylobacter, diarrhoea, sores, coughs, colds, high temperatures, chicken pox and measles. Every minute of every day the community health nurses did their best to organise, treat, feed, care for and befriend this traumatised refugee community. Every day the community health nurses would face hundreds of refugees lining up for treatment.
There were many difficulties including the language barrier. Ann recalls how frustrating it was not to be able to speak the main language spoken, which was Tetum. Even Portuguese or Indonesian would have helped. The community health nurses did have access to some very dedicated translators who worked around the clock to assist the community nurses in delivering the highest-quality treatment possible.
The community nurses ensured that by the time the refugees were transported interstate the vast majority had been returned to good health. Ann remembers that in the first two weeks of this calamity the community health nurses had delivered six babies, which no doubt added to the chaos.
When the refugees left the tent city each of them had a medical folder with their assessment, diagnosis, immunisations and treatments to take with them for the rest of their lives. This is something Ann is tremendously proud of.
Ann has an impeccable memory, and anyone who knows her will attest to that. She can recount in the most vivid detail some awesome events that happened in her life. We would all be so fortunate to have a memory as strong as Ann’s.
Ann recounted to me the many funny events that happened to her and her colleagues when they were community health nurses, and recalled one occasion which is both funny and embarrassing. She was showing a client how to use a peak flow meter, and blew so hard into the meter to demonstrate its action to the patient that her false teeth came out. Ann and her client erupted into laughter. When they recovered from their fit of hysterics, the client then assisted Ann in showing her how to properly operate the peak flow meter.
On another much more serious and sad occasion, Ann was driving past Casuarina High School to conduct home visits when she saw a car stopped in the middle of road with a pair of legs sticking out underneath. Ann immediately thought it must have been an accident site and pulled over to help. It turned out to be a 15-year-old student who had wanted to commit suicide, so had crawled under the car. Ann sat with, talked to and comforted the student, who eventually agreed to come out from underneath the car. As Ann was relieved the student was coming out from under the car, he grabbed her shirt and pulled it right off her back in the middle of Trower Road. There were cars and buses going past at a furious rate, and there was Ann, sitting next to her car and a teenage boy, half naked. Ann managed to retrieve half her shirt and ran into the school office, with tears of embarrassment running down her face. Despite this she was pleased the student went on to receive the appropriate counselling and ongoing mental health support.
There was one tragic occasion when Ann was assisting a palliative care client. She recalls attending the home. The sewerage system in that home had overflowed and raw sewage had filled the entire house, ankle deep. Ann and her colleagues had to go into the home and retrieve the client and the family out of this horrific situation to take them to hospital. As if the family was not going through enough at that difficult time, the wife of the palliative care patient then had to watch all her furniture and carpets be taken to the dump.
Ann recalls that palliative care was exhausting. She nursed dying people in their homes and had to fight constantly to get medicine for palliative care patients in the home. She fought this battle with emergency department doctors who, in Ann’s view, knew very little about palliative care. They were just giving nurses 100 mg of morphine and sending them on their way. In Ann’s true style she lobbied for two years to get a palliative care facility, and recalls getting $16 per night to be on call for palliative care. If you ended up being called out you received some time in lieu.
One thing Ann loved about palliative care was that you were welcomed into people’s families; you would see how families were coping with their grief and how they were interacting with each other. Ann recalls having to mentor them and shed tears with them so a person’s stories could be heard and shared in the person’s last weeks of life.
It was a truly multicultural experience for Ann, and all those experiences created challenges, but she gained so much from all of it. Whether it was Aboriginal, Greek or Indian families she was treating, relationships were built and trust was gained.
Community care nurses used to also conduct school screening for Years 1, 4 and 7. One of the main reasons they conducted this screening was to check for signs of child abuse. Ann recalls examining a five-year-old boy one day. She asked him to draw a picture of his mum and dad. The child drew a picture of a person lying on a bed with a dagger in their belly. Ann found out later that this child’s dad had murdered his mother, and not a single person at the school knew about it. Following that incident, he received the appropriate support.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Wear Red and Educate – Daniel Morcombe
Wear Red and Educate – Daniel Morcombe
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, you have on your desk – and I see a lot of you have them on already – a red ribbon for Wear Red and Educate in memory of Daniel Morcombe. The foundation and the family are working with the community and governments around the country to keep our children safe. Thank you, honourable members and I thank the government for providing them for everyone.
MOTION
Territory Insurance Office Challenges
Territory Insurance Office Challenges
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, 25 members of the Legislative Assembly now have an opportunity to talk about TIO and its future. I should say 24 members, because the Leader of the Opposition has been kicked out of the Chamber yet again.
I acknowledge the former member for Casuarina in the gallery looking somewhat different behind the glass. Welcome, Kon, good to see you. I only wish you had stayed to take over the role of Leader of the Opposition and we might have a more intelligent debate. We could have had the former member for Wanguri debating this. He wrote a report for government saying sell TIO. We could have had an articulate debate in this Chamber. Do not worry; the 14 on this side will debate a good policy.
I move that this House acknowledges that the Territory Insurance Office is facing significant future challenges in the rapidly changing world of insurance. If the right criteria are met now may be the appropriate time to realise our value in the TIO and reinvest in building the Territory for future generations.
At the outset, no final decision has been made on the sale of TIO. However, there exists an opportunity to generate significant funds for investment through the sale of state assets. The federal government is offering a financial incentive for states and territories to sell assets to fund infrastructure. For any sale, they will provide an extra 15% of the price we receive so long as it is invested in economic infrastructure. The offer is only available for the next two years and already other states are moving to take advantage of it. I believe every state and territory is taking advantage of this, including Tasmania, although I am happy to have that challenged.
This is a rare opportunity and one that can significantly help the Territory invest in new projects and create new jobs for the future. Given these circumstances, we believe the right time to examine a sale of TIO is now.
I have put this motion before the House to have a mature debate about the current and future direction of TIO. The Territory is finally turning the corner. We can see the light at the end of the Labor Party’s debt tunnel. My government has tackled the hard decisions.
Yesterday, I outlined the benefits of our decisions as seen in the Territory Annual Financial Report, TAFR, but there is more work to be done. The world continues to change rapidly and the Territory is not immune. We have to change and adapt. For 11 long years of closed-shop thinking the Leader of the Opposition and her union mates stripped the Territory of its opportunities.
I started this boom-and-bust argument in the May budget. We have been looking for a mature, educated and rational debate about the way governments manage our Territory. We have to balance the books; we cannot be forever in debt. We have to plan and think strategically. We have to be aware of what is happening in the world and the rest of Australia. We have to be aware that the Territory is undergoing a transitional economic phase in its history. We have to be mindful that our community and our children’s future are the most important things we, as politicians, have to be responsible for. This mature thinking and planning must be debated in parliament.
I have brought it into this Chamber for a reason. As everyone in this Chamber knows, politics in the Territory can be pretty rough, but I have set out to provide a real opportunity to have a mature debate …
Ms Walker: Then take it to a public forum that Territorians can attend.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr GILES: I call for a mature debate and the member for Nhulunbuy screams out. Let us hope the Leader of the Opposition is up to …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Offensive. I was not screaming. Interjections are part and parcel of parliamentary debate and I ask the Chief Minister to withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, if you could withdraw.
Mr GILES: Madam Speaker, I withdraw. I am quite clearly having a mature debate and you want to interject and scream across the Chamber ...
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! You have just ruled that he withdraw that word. I ask him to do so.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, please temper your words …
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, sit down. I am talking to …
Mr Tollner: I am speaking to the point of order …
Madam SPEAKER: Sit down! You do not have the call. Sit down.
Chief Minister, temper your conversation and stick to the debate rather than talking about other members of the Chamber.
Mr GILES: Yes, no worries. As I was saying before I was interrupted, I hope the Leader of the Opposition is up to the mark on this.
The insurance industry is facing local and global challenges. The increase in the number of large violent natural disasters has put pressure on insurance companies throughout the world. The Northern Territory insurance market is no different.
The Territory is growing rapidly and TIO must continue to change and adapt to these challenging and changing times. TIO is a very small player in a world market that has become extremely complex and interwoven as the world gets smaller. Although TIO has a significant number of customers in the Northern Territory, there is considerable risk for our medium- to long-term future. Worldwide competition is increasing and TIO will have to change the way it undertakes its business, and the way in which it considers its risk for different areas in the Territory, just like all other parts of Australia and the global market.
The main challenge facing TIO is to change the way in which it reweights the risk factors in the vastly different parts of the Northern Territory to maintain a competitive position with its rivals. TIO is undertaking changes to the flood insurance premiums which will result in price increases for premiums for customers in high-risk areas such as Katherine. This is inevitable. Premiums have already been increased 60% to 110% in the past five years depending on the product. TIO will continue to offer different prices in different areas according to risk. Every insurance company does this across the globe.
The Northern Territory government does not set TIO premiums for policyholders, nor does it subsidise premiums. TIO runs its business in a very competitive market and prices commercially. Earlier this year, the TIO Board set out to get a better understanding of these challenges and undertook a number of studies to determine the best way to move forward. These options include working with other Australian and global insurance companies. The outcome of this work was that it is the appropriate time to test the market to find the right buyer to take TIO into the future.
There is some very strong interest from some very good companies. However, we are determined to ensure that TIO remains in safe hands and that the brand, the people, and the policies remain on the same pathway. The TIO brand has tremendous value and the board understands that. It understands that its customers remain the most important part of the business.
Let me quote the chairman of TIO, Mr Bruce Carter, in a media release issued this week:
- ‘TIO has a uniquely concentrated book of risk, it is dominated by one single catastrophic risk; Darwin cyclone,’ ...
Increasingly, the insurance market has moved to companies that can spread risk beyond a single state, Territory or even country.’
- Mr Carter said TIO’s current challenge is how to gain access and become part of a fully diversified book of risk like the national insurers, with access to global capital markets.
- TIO needs to gain access to global capital markets whilst retaining the local nature of its business and its values.
The insurance business is based on the principle of pooling risks to share the cost of those risks amongst large groups of people, individuals and companies. It began in the 1800s when London ship owners created an informal pool to hedge the costs of the loss of a ship at sea. It was the beginning of Lloyds.
Pooling and sharing of risk best works when those underlining risks are different; that is, if two people share the risk on their cars. They are different risks, different drivers, their cars are different makes and they live and drive in different streets. By combining this risk they reduce the likelihood and cost of a theft or accident.
When we look at cyclone cover, TIO has a very large exposure to a Darwin cyclone risk, which occurs, on average, every 40 years. Having one major risk like this does not create the same diversifying effect of spreading risk. To manage that risk it needs to be shared with people and businesses that do not have exposure to a Darwin cyclone. Within the Northern Territory we look to grow our business in the Alice Springs and Katherine regions in particular. However, those areas are not large enough to offset the exposure of Darwin.
TIO was established in 1979 to ensure Territorians had access to compulsory workers’ compensation insurance and motor accident compensation cover. Since that time TIO has evolved into a general insurance company, providing a wide range of insurance products, as well as a banking business which primarily provides home loans and holds customer deposits.
The strategic imperative for the creation of TIO no longer exists. The Territory insurance industry is a vibrant and competitive one, with in excess of 12 insurers competing for customers. Most large national insurers offer products in the Territory.
The Territory is also well served by the banking industry, with the big four banks and a raft of second tier banks and credit unions also providing services. This reflects the global nature of the finance and insurance industry. Surely, Labor is not calling the big four banks to leave the Territory in the interest of TIO banking services.
All insurers operating in the Territory offer cyclone cover and all but one offer flood insurance. Even in the area of cyclone cover, TIO is no longer the cheapest; its prices sit in the middle of the market. TIO now exists in a market where it is no longer providing a unique service, nor is it keeping competitors’ prices at the lowest.
TIO remains the last government-owned insurer and bank in Australia, with other states having privatised in the late 1980s and 1990s. TIO is limited by legislation to offering services solely within the Territory. That means it is one of the smallest insurance companies in Australia competing against national and multinational corporations.
TIO is exposed to natural disaster risk exacerbated by the fact that all of its customers are concentrated in the Territory. TIO’s competitors have more capacity to diversify and fund risk from much greater premium pools. Diversified insurers with access to global capital markets are a more efficient and effective means of managing the risks to which TIO is exposed. This concentration of risk is not a new phenomenon unique to TIO; in fact, it is what drove the change in insurance markets in the 1980s and 1990s.
State-based mutual and government insurers had accumulated significant exposure in their home states. During the 1980s and 1990s, we saw global economic forces drive the first demutualisation of these businesses, followed by the consolidation into large national businesses such as IAG and Suncorp. It is the reason QBE has achieved the majority of its business growth in the US and Europe, and for the existence of global insurers such as Allianz and Zurich.
IAG is a great example. Starting as a state-based New South Wales motoring group NRMA, it has been able to diversify New South Wales’ earthquake risk with broader exposure to Victorian bushfires through RACV, South Australian bushfires through SGIC and Western Australia’s wind and storms through SGIO. It also has exposure in New Zealand, China, India, Malaysia and Vietnam to enable it to diversify and share risk on a broad and uncorrelated basis.
TIO’s competitors can also achieve significant economies of scale. This makes it more difficult for TIO to compete in a small market against competitors that operate on a national and international basis. As TIO is a government-owned organisation, the risks associated with natural disasters, as well as the financial wellbeing of TIO, are ultimately borne by Territory taxpayers. Given that mature and developed insurance and banking markets operate in the Territory, these risks are no longer justified.
If we do not act TIO will go in the future. The Territory is also facing a challenge with the possible changes to the way in which federal Australian governments support states and territories for disaster relief. Last month, the Productivity Commission issued a draft report outlining what changes might be made. Basically, the states and territories will be required to do more in being prepared for natural disasters and having their own plans and insurance in place for a natural disaster. My colleagues will be expanding on this issue in this debate and I look forward to hearing that.
The other major challenge facing our Territory is the way in which the TIO business is structured. Basically, the Northern Territory government underwrites the risk of a disaster for every TIO policyholder, plus the NT government is responsible for covering its own risk for roads, hospitals, school and the like.
Power and Water Corporation and Darwin Port assets are self-insured. That means not only are we covering the risk of TIO policyholders we are also covering the risk for every asset the Northern Territory government holds in the Northern Territory. Under the federal government Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements (the NDRRA) the Northern Territory government does not get federal government funding for the money paid out to TIO policyholders in the event of a disaster. The NT government only gets a proportion of the federal government funds the NT government has paid out for public infrastructure. If the TIO was sold, the risk for home policyholders is passed to national and international insurance and reinsurance companies. In the event of a disaster, all the funds paid by the Northern Territory government on rebuilding public infrastructure would be eligible for federal government funding. This is a much more effective way of using NT government funds in rebuilding after any likely disaster in the future – all of which we pray will not occur. Government money will be used for public assets and, as appropriate, global financial markets would be used for private homes and business – a good partnership arrangement.
TIO will not be sold unless certain key criteria are met. These key criteria are the issues that Territorians want to ensure are not lost or given away in any sale proposal, and they will be fundamental in any Cabinet decision or consideration. The first of these criteria is to protect the TIO brand so Territorians can continue to be proud of the business that has served the Northern Territory so well since 1979. This is probably one of the easiest points of any sale to resolve. It is important that it is recognised because it is dear to the hearts of Territorians, whether Territorians insure with TIO or with any one of the 12 competitors.
We will look to select a purchaser which will continue to provide Territorians with the unique products and services they need to ensure the best possible coverage. I have talked before about the 12 insurers in the marketplace – sometimes 15, but 12 in this debate – who all offer cyclone insurance, and the majority of whom offer flood cover. These elements of the products will be critical in determining the best partner for the long-term future of TIO.
Further, we will recognise that one of the most respected attributes of TIO is that it is the local people looking after local people – Territorians. Again, these things go to the heart and the value of the brand as an asset. No one buying that asset would want to destroy the value of that brand. In fact, that is one of the reasons an organisation which would purchase TIO would do it, because they want the brand – the relationship that is established with the Territory – and that goodwill. That is what they want to buy: the relationship, the friendliness of the Territory and its people and its brand. Clearly, we will give preference to a buyer who seeks to maintain the services the community needs.
Let me make it perfectly clear: the Giles government will not be selling the MAC Scheme. The Territory’s Motor Accidents Compensation Scheme is currently managed by TIO and will be retained as a Territory government underwritten scheme administered by a new statutory commission. The Motor Accidents Compensation Scheme is funded by Territory motorists through a portion of their vehicle registration charges. The scheme provides injured people with a range of benefits to compensate for the necessary and reasonable expenses they will incur as a result of a motor vehicle accident. Through its claims management services, TIO helps people to return to health and work, or in the case of the severely injured, achieve the best possible quality of life following a motor vehicle accident. The Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act has recently been amended so the benefits applying from 1 July 2014 are aligned with the National Injury Insurance Scheme (NIIS) standards for severe injury.
TIO also plays an important role in investing in sponsorships and community events. These arrangements will remain in place regardless of ownership with sponsorships such as TIO Stadium, TIO Traeger Park Oval, the NTFL and CAFL. All have arrangements in place to at least 2016 and beyond in many areas.
Other community investments such as CareFlight have similar arrangements and are sponsored by the MAC Scheme, which will remain in government ownership, as I have said.
Any potential buyer will be keen to maintain a brand presence as strong as the TIO has today. It is no coincidence that across the country insurers are the major sponsors of AFL sporting teams and other similar properties. The West Coast Eagles is one example.
As I have explained on numerous occasions, the Northern Territory government has a plan for the future of the Territory. The federal government is currently developing a White Paper on the Development of Northern Australia and we have gone to considerable lengths to make sure we are leading that agenda.
We have established the Northern Australia Development Office to drive the Territory’s role in that region, and have appointed a new Commissioner for Indonesia and Asia who is now based in Jakarta.
We see this as a truly nation-building project, turning Australia on its head, northern Australia being the most important with the Territory leading the way. It will be a nation-building project that will increase imports, exports, employment, terms of trade and secure Australia’s position among the world’s top economies.
The challenge with the INPEX project is a drop-off of capital expenditure at the end of the construction phase of the project, an industry the CLP started in the 1980s and 1990s before Darwin LNG was up and running.
The key is to continue to drive the development of infrastructure projects which are the building blocks of our future growth, something Labor never addressed with its one-shot-in-the-locker economy. These building blocks are vital for the entire Territory economy. The CLP delivered the Adelaide to Darwin rail line by completing the Alice Springs leg. The CLP dared to bring a gas industry to Darwin. We have restored and expanded the cattle and agriculture export markets. We are further supporting the development of the resources sector and are now developing the gas pipeline link to the rest of the eastern seaboard, providing leadership to the nation. We have not heard any words of support from the evicted Leader of the Opposition.
We have developed and expanded our Defence Force infrastructure and are keen to further enhance these facilities. The CLP grasped the strategic benefits of northern Defence and it is the CLP today which supports the Force Posture Agreement between Australia and the United States calling for more troops, more length of time and more nations rotating through the Territory to do training exercises here.
However, we need continuation of these infrastructure building blocks. The federal government’s nation-building program will be the equivalent of eight new Snowy Mountain schemes built in Australia in the next six years through government asset recycling.
The Labor states – South Australia and the ACT – have signed up to this process with South Australia already announcing the sale of its Motor Accidents Commission.
Selling government assets started in 1993, led by Labor’s great leader, Paul Keating, who sold the Commonwealth Bank and Qantas. All other states and Territories, including Labor states, did it.
My Giles Country Liberals government will be establishing an infrastructure fund which will hold the proceeds of asset sales retained to directly invest in the future of the Territory. We are drawing that legislation up right now and I will introduce that in the November sittings should timing prove successful.
The government intends that the statutory fund will hold proceeds of asset sales that are retained, to be used for investment in economic infrastructure in the Northern Territory. The infrastructure fund will be administered by an advisory board appointed by Cabinet. The role of the board is to assess infrastructure projects for eligibility for financial contributions from the fund in accordance with defined criteria, and to make recommendations to the Treasurer and Chief Minister. The infrastructure and investment criteria will include the longer-term economic growth and development of the Territory, and infrastructure which promotes productivity and living standards.
Just as importantly, the fund will leverage investment from the private sector and the Commonwealth asset recycling initiative. The holdings in the fund will be invested in financial assets to ensure growth of the fund over time in accordance with the defined management investment strategy determined by Cabinet, with the managed investment program overseen by the board.
Let me again make the point: we will not be using possible sale funds accumulated from the sale of TIO to pay off Labor debt. The proceeds will be used directly in other infrastructure projects which the government will own and operate for facilitating the future growth of the community and, importantly, the economy. These projects could include a $20m rectangular sports stadium in Marrara, the $30m road on the Tiwi Islands to get forestry product to the port and drive job growth on the Tiwis, $20m for flood mitigation works in Katherine to help put downward price pressures on premiums in Katherine, $15m for improved telecommunications networks through mobile and data towers across the Territory, a $30m contribution for an Indigenous cultural centre in Alice Springs and commencement of the Sadadeen Road and Albrecht Drive bypasses.
As mentioned in Question Time, we are also looking very positively at an ambulatory care centre within Royal Darwin Hospital that would allow for an expansion of services currently being provided for outpatients and allied health clinics – primary healthcare services and day surgery – allowing for an expansion from 24 bed or chair capacity to 41, providing for an additional 37 500 occasions of service through an additional 17 treatment spaces. Costing is around $60m at this stage. These are the things we want to give back to Territorians.
Part of this model is about selling TIO, but it is about making sure that TIO remains Territorian and making sure that Territorians benefit from the re-investment strategy into community and economic infrastructure, something that Territorians would welcome. We are recycling the assets, not selling and wasting the money to pay back Labor debt.
One of the issues we will need to deal with if we are to proceed to sell TIO is creating certainty for all stakeholders. TIO, as you know, is a financial institution and holds deposits from mums and dads across the Territory and large institutions and financial investors. This is a very important point and goes to the heart of why transactions need to occur quickly. I will read that paragraph again before I go on. TIO, as you know, is a financial institution and holds deposits from mums and dads across the Territory and large institutions and financial investors. It does this to directly fund its lending activities for home mortgages.
Many of these large institutions have mandates that require them to have certain security ratings for their funds. These funds are highly liquid and will move at short notice. Currently, TIO relies on these large institutional depositors for $360m of its $600m of funds. Should there be any uncertainty when it comes to selling TIO, it is likely these depositors could withdraw their funds, leaving TIO with a liquidity shortfall of $350m. Ultimately, this would need to be supported by the Northern Territory government for a period of time.
I am sure members on both sides would agree that we would like to ensure all TIO policyholders, depositors, borrowers and employees have certainty as quickly as possible so they know their products and relationship with TIO will be unchanged under new ownership. This is why, if the time comes, we will need to move quickly and act with deliberate intent to pass legislation and make the decisions to bring about the necessary agreements to enable a sale to a successful bidder.
TIO was established to kick-start an industry that basically did not exist in the Northern Territory. Now it has matured we need to use those funds to kick-start future industries in the Northern Territory by establishing an infrastructure fund and reusing those assets.
In conclusion, it is not only incumbent on government to review our position and ownership in the insurance industry, but we would be derelict in our duty to Territorians if we did not engage in a mature conversation around whether it may be an appropriate time to realise our value in TIO and reinvest in building the Territory for future generations.
Madam Speaker, I commend this motion. I ask those reading Hansard to re-read my last few sentences about the timeliness of passing any legislation through expedited decisions during this process. This is to ensure we do not have a liquidity issue with TIO. It is not haste in government, it is an issue around liquidity. I ask all members to consider that matter.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome the debate on TIO, although I hold grave concerns, given the Chief Minister’s comments in this Chamber last night when he said we are seeking final offers and the sale will happen very quickly. That has rung the bells across the Territory with everyone who has become aware of those comments. This Chief Minister is crashing through a rapid desire to sell TIO, despite having no mandate from Territorians to sell our insurer, nor having the gumption or decency to hold a referendum about whether or not to sell TIO.
One wonders why a Chief Minister who purports to be supporting business is pursing the sale of TIO – even though in Question Time today he pretended it was TIO pursuing its own sale, which is not the case. It is the Chief Minister pursuing the sale of TIO; he is the shareholding minister of TIO. One wonders why a Chief Minister who purports to be the leader of a political party that represents business would hastily pursue the sale of TIO. The Chamber of Commerce has met businesses, and it is strongly opposed to the sale of TIO. The Chamber of Commerce has said it will be taking its concerns to government. The Chamber of Commerce said if another large insurer comes in it will have major impact on premiums, people are not really across all issues, business people are unsure about the impacts on their businesses and there are very significant concerns among business people.
The Chamber of Commerce referred to submissions to the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia, which I acknowledged in debate in parliament last night, in the very real experience that occurred in northern Queensland. It said the danger of a down-south insurer is they may not be aware of any differences between north Queensland and the Northern Territory and they lump us all together is the same risk profile. Through experience we know that to be the case. The Chamber of Commerce said the TIO equalisation across policies has been able to ease the pain on individual policyholders, and it does not want north Queensland insurance problems coming across to the Northern Territory. That is the Chamber of Commerce publicly stated position, strongly opposing the sale of TIO.
This government continues to pursue crash-through policies to the detriment of Territorians. Have you held a forum in Katherine? Have you stated the case for the sale of TIO to the residents of Katherine? Have you explained to the residents of Katherine what the policies of flood coverage are across the private insurance sector?
A caller to Mix FM today said after the Katherine floods she was paid insurance; she was insured by TIO. Her next door neighbour was not paid insurance; they were insured by a private insurer. Yesterday I was contacted by a friend who said their workmate in Katherine had rung all the private insurance companies to find if anyone would insure them privately. The answer was only one would touch them, but it would come at an extra $8500 a year.
You are crashing through to make a decision that will have dire consequences for Territorians. The need to properly insure your home does not come much more basic, as does business having the appropriate insurance coverage at an affordable premium to ensure, in the event of a natural disaster, the payments are made in a timely manner.
Chief Minister, have you, any of your Cabinet colleagues or any of your backbenchers read the reports into the insurance issues post-Queensland floods and Cyclone Yasi? If you had, you would not even be proposing this sale. One thing I value about Australians is we have an enormous ability to learn from mistakes.
Under Labor, there was a proposal brought before Cabinet to consider the sale of TIO that became a very public discussion. Under Labor, Cabinet decided not to sell. That all occurred before the Queensland floods and Cyclone Yasi, before we had the information we have today of the dire consequences of when you have only private insurance models across northern Australia. Our knowledge is greater today than it was when Labor decided not to sell for genuine reasons after hearing from Territorians that they did not want their insurer sold as they had grave concerns about their capacity to get alternative, comparable insurance coverage and the price of insurance premiums. Good governments represent their people. Good governments listen to their people. We are not seeing good government here.
The Chief Minister said, ‘In the event of the sale we are making sure TIO remains Territorian’. Nonsense! There is no insurance or banking company that is registered and operated from the Northern Territory to buy TIO. Let us be clear about this; let us stop making up nonsense. If TIO is sold, it is no longer Territorian. At least try to be honest in this debate. TIO cannot remain Territorian if it is sold, considering there is no Territorian insurance or bank to buy it. It would go to a multinational or an international company. There is no ability in restrictive sales to ensure that, into the future, the government has a lever on premiums. The escalations we have seen in northern Queensland of some 2500% would hit Territorians like a dire crashing wave of financial pain. Some of us are less affected than others. Residents in Alice Springs are less affected than residents in Katherine. Residents in post-Cyclone Tracy homes constructed under the Building Code are less affected than residents in pre-Cyclone Tracy homes. That is a fact.
I am fortunate my home in Karama is relatively young in the scheme of things. It is about 15 years old and built to code. I have plenty of friends across the community I love who are living in pre-Cyclone Tracy homes. They are not in the situation I am and they need our TIO.
Let us look at what our TIO does because we know it is a banker and an insurer. There has not been much, but there needs to be significant debate around the Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act compensation scheme that was established in respect to people who are injured or killed in motor vehicle accidents in the Northern Territory. The MAC Scheme is administered by TIO on behalf of the Northern Territory government. The scheme is funded by Territory motorists through a portion of their vehicle registration charges. It provides injured people with an entitlement to compensation for certain expenses they will incur as a result of a motor vehicle accident. Through its claims management services, TIO helps people to return to work, to health, or in the case of our severely injured, achieve the best possible quality of life following a motor accident.
In the past in another profession I cared for quadriplegics living in our community who are funded in their home attendant care through TIO’s MAC Scheme. This conversation is not occurring with them, yet they would be completely and directly affected by a change to who administers MAC. Currently it is a government-owned organisation, our TIO, that administers MAC. If you put it into private hands what happens to our quadriplegics relying on that for their life? Have you consulted with our seriously injured on the MAC Scheme? Have you done an assessment? Have you done a risk analysis? Do you care? I believe the answer to all of those is no.
The Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act and the benefits are now aligned with the National Injury Insurance Scheme standards for severe injury. It is critical to understand the detail of the effect and impact you will have on Territorians’ lives.
TIO has partnered with CareFlight to support the Darwin-based rescue helicopter. In September last year, TIO was proud to announce it would sponsor CareFlight’s Darwin-based rescue helicopter for a minimum of three years. CareFlight’s rapid response capabilities supports TIO’s goal for personal injury management and improving health outcomes. The cost of road trauma in the Territory is more than triple the national average and rapid response is key to survival and minimising injury. CareFlight works to reduce the challenges in the Territory created by the tyranny of distance and remoteness for communities in the Top End. Sponsorship of the CareFlight TIO rescue helicopter will help meet the running costs of the rapid response helicopter service which forms part of the Top End medical retrieval service which CareFlight operates on behalf of the Department of Health.
Health minister, I invite you, in your contribution to debate, to explain to us exactly what alternative provisions would be in place to ensure that critical sponsorship of CareFlight. The CareFlight TIO rescue helicopter is an integral component of CareFlight’s aeromedical service as it allows its critical CareFlight nurses and doctors to respond directly to motor vehicle crashes and other trauma patients. Patients can be stabilised by the CareFlight medical team working with community clinic nurses and St John Ambulance paramedics, then given intensive care treatment as they are flown direct to Royal Darwin Hospital.
DriveSafe NT Remote is a program which helps to close the gap on Indigenous disadvantage by providing greater access to driver training and licensing in remote Northern Territory communities. TIO provides funding for the pilot program which has led to more than 1500 driving lessons being provided, 500 learner licences issued and almost 200 provisional licences granted. TIO’s commitment has continued with further funding and has created animated training modules and innovative training tools to assist driver education in road safety areas of seat belts, drink-driving and pedestrian safety. Who will do this work? Which multinational will fund this program? I look forward to the answer from the Minister for Transport in this debate.
TIO is helping new Australians in the Territory to learn to drive through its support for the Multicultural Council of the Northern Territory’s Passport to Drive Program. The program offers driver education and training for refugees and eligible migrants, helping them to adjust to Australian road conditions and obtain a driver’s licence. TIO support was by donation of a Toyota Corolla in 2011, which is available for training and practice for those receiving their licence. Minister for Transport and Multicultural Affairs, who will support the Multicultural Council of the Northern Territory when TIO is sold?
In Darwin, housing resilience goes to risk analysis work done for and on behalf of Territorians by TIO. TIO conducted a housing study to determine how properties are affected by weather conditions over time. In May 2012, TIO engaged the James Cook University Cyclone Testing Station to conduct a non-invasive survey on 21 houses in Darwin that were built, or substantially reconstructed, during the period from about 1975 to 1980. The purpose of the survey was to determine if there were any significant impacts that would impair the house’s resilience to severe storms.
The Cyclone Testing Station forms part of the School of Engineering and Physical Sciences at James Cook University in Townsville. It is the pre-eminent, independent authority on the effects of high wind and related damage to low-rise buildings in Australia, Southeast Asia and the Pacific. The survey investigated the as-built state of houses in relation to supply drawings from the department of Lands and Planning, when available, and for details such as structural members, connection, sizes and spacing. The current condition of building elements were also inspected for age defects such as decay.
In case this one escapes your knowledge, Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment, I point out that it goes to risk and the premiums that can be set by a Territory-owned insurer having survey data and detail by a pre-eminent authority to say to their re-insurers, ‘We know what the risk profile actually is, which is why our premiums are set at this level’. A multinational will not do that. A multinational will risk-profile us higher, but you do not care. It is not about understanding the details of what has to happen or the genuine work that TIO does on behalf of Territorians.
The automated number plate recognition technology is the primary method used by NT Police to detect unregistered and uninsured motor vehicles. In 2014, TIO funded automated number plate recognition devices for the Southern Command Traffic Unit. TIO believes committing to the funding will improve road safety, increase detection of unregistered and uninsured vehicles and increase contribution to the MAC Scheme. In addition to detecting unregistered vehicles, police can use the ANPR technology to determine other offences including defective vehicles, stolen vehicles, unlicensed drivers, suspended from driving, disqualified from driving, warrant for arrest and warrant issued for arrest.
Who will do this work in the future, Minister for Transport? Who will work with police in funding the tools the police need to make our roads safer? Which multinational you intend to sell to will step into that space? Private insurers do not do that, government-owned do. They know they are corporate citizens that have a broader responsibility to our broader safety.
Joining forces with McArthur River Mining, TIO attended the annual Borroloola Show to promote road safety in the surrounding region. Borroloola has an approximate population of around 1000, of which about 90% are Indigenous. In partnership with MRM, TIO attends the Borroloola Show with interactive programs to highlight the dangers of drink-driving and educate people on the risks associated with not wearing a seat belt and speeding. MRM operates heavy vehicles, including road trains, in the vicinity of Borroloola community and has a vested interest in road safety education and providing a safe environment. Which major multinational insurer will visit the Borroloola Show in the future, Minister for Transport?
The Central Australian Football League is the Alice Springs-based AFLNT competition and runs from March to September annually. The league comprises around 600 players, of which 80% are Indigenous. Each week some players undertake a 700 km round trip just to play. AFL is loved with a passion throughout the Territory and has a special place in the culture of many Indigenous communities. In many communities footy plays a crucial role in keeping people together, giving them a sense of community and belonging and offering them an opportunity to meet and exchange news while they cheer their team on. TIO’s sponsorship of the CAFL allows it to engage with an audience that is difficult to reach through mainstream media. TIO’s goals are to increase and maintain road safety awareness in Alice Springs and remote communities and promote safer road user behaviours and attitudes, with a focus on wearing seatbelts, drink-driving, pedestrian safety and the use of child restraints. Who will take over that sponsorship when TIO is sold, minister for Sport?
TIO is currently developing a campaign to target suburban speeding. The campaign will centre on encouraging drivers to slow down around schools, parks, residential areas and suburban thoroughfares. Statistics show in the first eight months of 2013, NT police issued more than 22 000 infringement notices in the Darwin metropolitan command area. Of these, almost 18 000 were issued for exceeding the speed limit by between 1 km/h and 15 km/h. These statistics highlight the need to raise awareness about the dangers of low-level speeding. Driving above the designated speed limit, even by a few kilometres, decreases reaction time and increases stopping distance. It could be the difference between the life and death of a pedestrian, child or cyclist. Which multinational, Minister for Transport, will pick up that funding?
A series of talking posters produced in collaboration with NT Police have been distributed across 52 remote communities and eight regional centres throughout the Northern Territory. The talking posters were created in 32 different Indigenous language dialects to deliver messages about drink-driving, seat belts and pedestrian safety. The posters feature well-known past and present Indigenous AFL players to help ensure the message is relevant. Each player brings their personal experiences with road trauma and leverages their role model status within Indigenous communities. This is funded by TIO. Are you starting to get the picture, CLP, or is it that you simply do not want to know?
TIO’s You Deserve It drink-driving campaign focuses on the concept that if you drink and drive you deserve to be caught. The campaign includes television and radio commercials, billboard advertising and ads displayed on public buses. The campaign aims to raise awareness about police enforcement, but approaches the challenge from a new perspective, recognising the role drinking plays in our culture but leaving the audience with a clear choice and consequence. Our message is simple: you do not have to be drunk to be a drink-driver. If you have a few drinks – whether it is at a barbecue, at dinner with your partner or after-work drinks – plan ahead and arrange alternative transport home.
When I was the Sports minister, I understood how hard it is for our major sporting venues in capacity. The naming rights TIO took up at the Marrara AFL stadium provided crucial help to AFLNT. These are some of the ways in which TIO helps our community across the Northern Territory. It does not do it for the bottom line and as an insurer that looks at premiums; it does it as part of its corporate responsibility for the place it holds within the Northern Territory. The government has raised none of these things in debate as alternatives they would have to ensure this occurs – not one.
It has been extraordinary to watch a government that puts its effort and emphasis on spin on a website that asks for a Christmas shopping list – a wish list – instead of asking the question everyone wants to have a say on: do you support the sale of TIO?
Householders who have insurance with TIO have chosen that for a reason. Those families understand their risk profile and who provides them with the best coverage for their personal circumstances. The Chief Minister said in this parliament there are people who choose not to insure with TIO. That is right, because of their personal circumstances. But what the Chief Minister is ignoring completely is those Territorians who need to insure with TIO because of their circumstances. As I said, those Territorians stand to lose so much through the sale of TIO.
It will not be Territorian. It will not have downward pressure on premiums because it is publicly owned. It will not have timely payment. Territorians living in the storm surge zones around Darwin, Rapid Creek, Ludmilla – to name a couple – in Katherine or in pre-Cyclone Tracy homes are the ones who stand to lose the most with the sale of TIO.
Our businesses are saying not to sell TIO. Mums and dads are lining up at the shopping centres, at our offices, walking in willingly to sign petitions against the sale of TIO. Businesses are lined up saying not to sell TIO. Where is the chorus for sale? Just with the CLP. Why? Because of all the infrastructure projects that were named by the Chief Minister, some of them very worthy.
Government is unable and incapable of leveraging nation-building infrastructure from the Commonwealth – not a cent in two years. The CLP government has had two years to leverage any infrastructure funding from the Commonwealth and failed. The infrastructure funding you announced was signed off under Labor. It is a forward works pipeline through Labor’s efforts that you are relying on. You cannot deliver for the Territory, so you expect Territorians to pay for your incompetence.
There is a saying that you cannot unscramble an egg. Many people talk to me about how bad this government is, how desperate they are to see a change of government and my responsibility to fight the worst. People are imploring me to fight the sale of TIO. They are saying it to my colleagues. We take our job seriously, we continue to fight. However, what I have heard from the Chief Minister is they are seeking final offers and it will be sold quickly.
What I heard today in the Chamber from the Chief Minister is in the event of a decision to sell, they will rush through legislation because of the risk to liquidity. Chief Minister, are we staring down the barrel of a November sittings sale of TIO, with legislation on urgency? That is what I hear when you say that. Will you be honest with Territorians? No, you have not been yet. We will not be holding our breath for that to occur.
As I said in debate last night, TIO is an organisation that operates right now on a commercial basis and is fully committed to complying with prudential standards and achieving key industry performance benchmarks. TIO works to maximise the positive impact of its business activities and decisions for all its stakeholders including employees, customers, the community and its owner. It operates ethically, encouraging good conduct from suppliers, treating employees responsibly, ensuring the safety of employees, ensuring marketing statements are accurate and delivering high-quality products and service.
As you heard in my contribution today, it also contributes to the social and economic wellbeing of the Northern Territory by investing resources in activities that benefit its owner as well as other stakeholders in the Territory across sport, arts, culture, youth, health, recreation and education.
The Chief Minister said it would remain Territorian. Chief Minister, name the Territory business that could purchase TIO? You cannot, because one does not exist. That is a big fat porky. No, Chief Minister, if sold TIO is no longer Territorian; it is no longer the corporate citizen we rely on to invest across the social economic infrastructure of the Territory through the programs I have mentioned. The citizens who rely on its insurance are left hung out to dry. Good luck finding insurance – business or household – and do not expect to find it at a price you can afford. In the event of a flood or cyclone, you will experience what we saw occur in Queensland – you will not be paid. You will somehow be expected to rebuild and reconstruct your business and your life without insurance payments. That is the legacy Adam Giles wants to leave Territorians.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Health): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Chief Minister’s motion that the Territory Insurance Office is facing significant future challenges in the rapidly changing world of insurance and that if the right criteria is met, now may be the appropriate time to realise our value in the Territory Insurance Office and reinvest in building the Territory for future generations.
We have to be pragmatic about this. What you just heard from the Leader of the Opposition was an emotional account of the wonderful contribution TIO has made to the social fabric of the Territory. There is no denying this has been a wonderful experience. The last 25 years of TIO and its contribution to all facets of society – none of us in government will refute the fact that TIO has contributed enormously to sporting groups, CareFlight and a range of social and sporting initiatives that have enhanced the growth and the wellbeing of the Territory.
However, all of us heard, before the Opposition Leader gave her contribution, the Chief Minister say very clearly that the contribution TIO makes to our society will not change if it is sold. That would be a part of the contract of sale. The new insurer would take on a similar social responsibility when it comes to the Northern Territory,
One thing the Leader of the Opposition failed to recognise is times have changed. Things changed a long time ago in this space. The Territory Insurance Office remains the last government-owned insurer and bank in Australia. This did not happen recently. In Western Australia, SGIO was sold in 1994, 20 years ago; SGIO in Victoria sold in 1992, 22 years ago; GIO in New South Wales sold 22 years ago; SGIC in South Australia sold 19 years ago; GIO in Tasmania sold 21 years ago, and Suncorp in Queensland was sold in 1997.
Debate suspended.
The Assembly suspended.
MOTION
Appointment of Administrator
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly note the appointment of Mr John Hardy OAM as the Northern Territory’s 21st Administrator. Mr Hardy was appointed by Governor-General Sir Peter Cosgrove this afternoon. Her Honour Sally Thomas AC will step down as the 20th Administrator of the Northern Territory later today. I had an opportunity to catch up with her earlier this morning.
Mr Hardy is a proud Territorian with a track record of working hard in business and the community. He is an outstanding choice for this role, and I look forward to him taking up the position and representing the people of the Northern Territory over the next two years.
Mr Hardy came to the Territory in 1971, initially as a pilot, and then worked as a radiographer at the Darwin Hospital. Like many of us he never expected to stay more than a couple of years, but 43 years later he is still here and has now been appointed as the Administrator.
He made his name in the Territory as a respected businessman, establishing Airnorth in 1978 and Hardy Aviation in 1991. Mr Hardy is a strong supporter of community organisations including the Government House Foundation, the Darwin Symphony Orchestra and the Tiwi Islands Football Club. He is also a member of the Rotary Club of Darwin. He hopes to continue his community work as part of his new role. On behalf of the government and the people of the Territory I congratulate Mr Hardy on his appointment and welcome him to the challenging position of Administrator.
I thank Her Honour Sally Thomas for her outstanding contribution to the Northern Territory over the past three years. Her Honour was sworn in as Administrator on 31 October 2011. Born in Cambridge, England, she migrated to Sydney with her parents in 1945, where she attended Hornsby Girls High School. She studied law, and in 1963 was admitted as a legal practitioner to the Supreme Court in New South Wales and, subsequently, the High Court of Australia. Her Honour moved to the Northern Territory in 1978 to take up an appointment as a Stipendiary Magistrate. During her time she has proven to be a trailblazer for women in the legal profession and the Northern Territory more generally. She served as the first female magistrate in the Territory, and then the first female Chief Magistrate of the Northern Territory until 1992. Her Honour was the first female Justice of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory from 1992 to 2009.
Her Honour’s career has not been limited to the judicial system. During the immediate period following her retirement from the Supreme Court, Her Honour played at active role in the community as patron, president and chair of numerous organisations. These included Browns Mart, the Northern Territory AIDS and Hepatitis Council and the YWCA, just to name a few.
She has always held a strong interest in the tertiary education of Territorians. She was the Deputy Chair of the Northern Territory College of Queensland University, and a member of the then Northern Territory University Council from 1989 to 2003. In 2003, the Northern Territory University changed its name and became part of the expanded Charles Darwin University, and Her Honour was appointed to the Council of Charles Darwin University and elected Deputy Chancellor.
Her Honour was first appointed Chancellor of the university on 1 January 2010, a position she continues to hold today. She was Chair of the Legal Aid Commission from 1990 to 1996, Chair of the Northern Territory’s Winston Churchill Fellowship Committee from 1992 to 2004, and in 2004 was appointed Deputy National Chair of Fellowship of the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust.
In June 2000, Her Honour was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia for her service to the community, particularly through the Northern Territory Winston Churchill Memorial Fellowship Committee to tertiary education and to the law.
In January 2014, she was appointed a Companion of the Order of Australia for her eminent service to the people of the Northern Territory, particularly to the judiciary and social justice system, to the advancement of women in the legal profession, to youth and to the promotion and the development of Territory education.
Her Honour has a strong commitment to community service including as a long-term member of the Rotary Club of Darwin Sunrise Branch where she has helped to raise funds for local and international humanitarian projects and participated in a range of hands-on activities to benefit the welfare and development of her fellow Territorians.
During her three-year term as Administrator, Her Honour Sally Thompson has hosted 345 occasions at Government House for community groups, patronages and investiture ceremonies for Australian honours and awards. She has attended 859 events throughout the Northern Territory – put that in context: 859 events throughout the Northern Territory in three years – received 314 courtesy calls from the Diplomatic Corps, senior international and Australian military personnel, local and national community group representatives and Northern Territory citizens.
She has hosted several school tours for students of all levels at Government House, many of them remote schools visiting from Northern Territory areas to Darwin. She has presided over 51 meetings of the Executive Council, delivered 299 official speeches, and welcomed 22 177 guests to Government House. She has been busy.
Two weeks after being sworn in, the first international guest Her Honour welcomed to the Northern Territory on behalf of all Territorians was none other than the President of the United States, Mr Barack Obama. Following the announcement by the President and then Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, of the US Marine rotations in Darwin, Her Honour has taken a keen interest in the status of the rotations and their impact on the broader community. Her Honour visited the US Embassy in Canberra in 2002 to represent Territorians at the celebrations for their Independence Day.
Her Honour was invested as a Dame in the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem and Deputy Prior of St John Ambulance of the Northern Territory by Her Excellency Ms Quentin Bryce, Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia on 18 February 2012.
Her Honour was invested as Chief Scout of the Northern Territory on 22 February 2012 and its Honorary Commodore to No 13 City of Darwin Squadron Royal Australia Air Force.
She has conducted 30 official travel itineraries intra-Territory and interstate including visits to remote communities, always aiming to visit the schools and health clinics and engage with community members and learn about their lives. Her Honour has spent time on cattle stations, focusing on independently family-owned stations and hearing how they manage their respective businesses in an ever-changing environment. She has visited mining centres throughout the Northern Territory including places such as Borroloola, McArthur River, Nhulunbuy and Jabiru. She has seen schools, hospitals, clinics, police stations, cultural centres and cultural festivals and celebrations throughout many regional remote areas of the Territory.
Her Honour was the first Administrator of the Northern Territory to deliver the Anzac Day dawn services address in Tennant Creek in April this year, delivering a speech focused on none other than Albert Borella VC.
Her Honour officially welcomed their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge to the Northern Territory in April 2014 at Uluru.
She represented Territorians in Melbourne at the National Memorial Services for victims of MH17 and the state funeral for the Governor of Tasmania in July of this year.
Her Honour holds more than 70 patronages and honorary positions and has been involved with these organisations as often as the official program allowed, advocating their goals, achievements and aspirations.
Her Honour Sally Thomas AC is a representative Colonel to the Northwest Mobile Force and recently hosted the closing ceremony for Exercise Kowari, the first trilateral exercise between Australia, Chinese and the United States military which was held on Territory soil.
When asked recently about her role as Administrator, Her Honour said she had been thrilled to meet so many passionate and committed people contributing to the community through their work and volunteering capacity. She said the opportunity to visit so many schools to see what wonderful young people we have in the Northern Territory has been a constant delight. She also said she has been very privileged to hold the position of Administrator of the Northern Territory and has loved every moment of it.
Mr Duncan McNeill should not go unmentioned. Mr McNeill has ably supported Her Honour in her role as Administrator over the last three years and took patronages of his own during the term. I thank Mr McNeill for his support of the Northern Territory. I saw Mr McNeill at the Administrator’s residence earlier today lumbering around in his garden gear packing the boxes to leave the Administrator’s residence.
Madam Speaker, the Northern Territory has been honoured to have Sally Thomas as its 20th Administrator and, most notably, the first woman to be appointed as Administrator. On behalf of the Assembly and Territorians, I wish Her Honour Sally Thomas all the best in her future endeavours and thank her for her immense contribution and unwavering service to the people of the Northern Territory.
As everything starts to settle in for Mr John Hardy, I suggest he soak it all in and look forward to the opportunity of representing the Northern Territory as Administrator over the next two years. Your time between 30 October 2014 and 10 November 2014, when you will be formally sworn in by Governor-General Sir Peter Cosgrove, will be an up and down one where you are looking forward to the excitement of taking on the role in a formal capacity.
I, government and the parliament welcomes you to the role.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the opposition warmly welcomes the announcement of John Hardy as Administrator to be sworn in on 10 November by the Governor-General, Sir Peter Cosgrove. John is an exceptional Territorian. He is well-known for having established Hardy Aviation in 1991, which has been a vital provider of air links to our regional and remote towns across the Northern Territory.
Marie Hardy will be a fantastic partner. The roles and patronages as the Administrator and spouse at Government House are a partnership. Marie is a woman of great capacity and generosity of spirit. I am sure she will bring a very special touch to Government House.
John Hardy is someone I have had immense pleasure in knowing pretty well most of my life. I have aways found him to be one of our quieter heroes in the community. John has done a lot of philanthropic work in the Northern Territory. He has not just succeeded in business; he is one of those rare gentlemen committed to contributing to his community. Whilst there was recognition of his work through Darwin Symphony Orchestra and Rotary, I know John Hardy has been a regular ‘go to’ person when people are looking for philanthropic support across the arts in particular, but many sectors of our society.
He is a man who has a rich embracing of Territory aviation history, and his own plane collection is quite significant.
He has always been generous in ensuring he uses his capacity to promote the Northern Territory. Not only will he make an exceptional Administrator, he will continue to be a fine ambassador for the Northern Territory across the spectrum of tourism as well as aviation.
John has shown his passion for ensuring we are a whole-of-Territory in his approach to our community. His recognition of the vital importance of air links to our regional and remote centres has been exceptional. Even when some of the air link legs are not necessarily the most viable to operate, John Hardy has stuck with them. He has backed the people of the Territory in our most far-flung corners.
I am delighted to say, on behalf of the Northern Territory opposition, that we very much look forward to the swearing in of John Hardy as our next Administrator – a very fine choice indeed.
The Chief Minister’s speech recognised many of the achievements of Her Honour Sally Thomas AC. It was a thrill to be part of a Labor government that appointed our first female Administrator. Sally Thomas, as we have heard, hit many firsts in her distinguished career as a legal officer, the first female magistrate of the Northern Territory, the first female Chief Magistrate of the Northern Territory, the first female Supreme Court Judge, and the peak, the first female Administrator.
She took on the opportunity of being the Administrator with the generosity of spirit she has because she was already in that incredibly vital role of Chancellor of Charles Darwin University. Not known to everyone is the fact that Sally has managed important and busy jobs as Administrator and Chancellor of our university, and managed them both with distinction. Listening to exactly how many visitors she has had, and how many trips she has taken across the Territory in her engagement did not take us by surprise because we know this is a woman of great vigour, passion and love for the Territory, and very much the people of the Territory.
Chief Minister, I am glad you acknowledged the work of Duncan McNeill. He has been a great source of strength and a wonderful partner to the Administrator. The husband from New Zealand – the land of the long white cloud – adopted everything Territorian, and is very Territorian in his nature. He is a very friendly, generous man who was always very accommodating and made people feel at ease in both the Administrator’s company and his own.
We wish Her Honour Sally Thomas and Duncan all the very best. This is another chapter, turning into the next part of their exciting journey together. I am so pleased for the Charles Darwin University as they get her back full-time, so to speak, although as we have heard from the Chief Minister, Sally supports a whole range of organisations. She has incredible capacity and has done so much work for Territorians.
Thank you, Chief Minister, for making the announcement of John Hardy as our next Administrator. It puts a stop to all the speculation that had been floating around our Territory for some six months. It is good to have that announced. We all look forward to the opportunity of giving Her Honour Sally Thomas the normal and appropriate send-offs, as well as the opportunity to very much welcome and embrace the announcement of John Hardy OAM as our next Administrator.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): I also congratulate Mr John Hardy on being our next Administrator. I am not sure whether it was a budget consideration of the government, but Mr Hardy – who is someone I have known for a long time – can fly himself around now, all over the Territory. I have known him through the airline industry. He has been one of the leaders in the aviation industry in the Northern Territory. He is a great pick, as the Leader of the Opposition said.
He has also been involved in Rotary. I have been to the odd Rotary meeting John Hardy attended. From my knowledge of those meetings it is obvious there will only be the best wine in the Administrator’s house because John is also a connoisseur of a good red wine, from memory. He is a great character. If you want a down-to-earth Territorian you could not have gone past John Hardy.
I thank the government; it is a great selection. There are many other people who probably would have also been suitable but John is the right person.
I also thank Sally Thomas for all her hard work as the Administrator. People in the rural area came to love Sally very much. She has been out to the rural area a number of times. I once said to her ‘If we keep meeting up like this word will get around’, because she was at the Taminmin Library a number of times talking about her role as the Administrator and opening various events.
When Sally Thomas first started, she found it a bit strange. You could feel it was something she was not accustomed to. But as the years rolled on in her job she became a great Administrator. She had a wonderful way with people, whether they were from the rich end of town or out bush in a community. People in the rural area who met Sally Thomas appreciated and respected her as a wonderful Administrator and woman.
Madam Speaker, on a personal note, I thank her for all the work she has done across the Territory. I wish her well in whatever she does in the future. I am sure I will catch up with her around town somewhere.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Territory Insurance Office Challenges
Territory Insurance Office Challenges
Continued from earlier this day.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Health): Madam Speaker, I continue my comments on the motion put forward to the House by the Chief Minister earlier today. The Territory Insurance Office is facing significant future challenges in the rapidly-changing world of insurance. If the right criteria are met, now may be the appropriate time to realise our value in the TIO and reinvest in building the Territory for future generations.
Prior to the break I was reflecting on the fact we are the only jurisdiction in Australia in which the government insurance office remains with government. TIO remains the last government-owned insurer and bank in Australia, with all other states having privatised theirs about 20 years ago. The reason for that is that all other states bar the Territory saw the writing on the wall. They saw that the market had changed and moved from a national market to an international one. The globalisation of capital changed the whole environment of banking and insurance across Australia.
The reason TIO remained government-owned in the Territory was partly due to the fact it has been a great supporter of our community. It was seen as a game changer when it started in 1979. It was established to ensure Territorians had access to compulsory workers’ compensation insurance and motor accident compensation cover. We have held on to it for many different reasons. The debate about selling TIO has been going on for pretty much the last 15 years I remember, perhaps even longer.
When the Opposition Leader talked about how you cannot unscramble an egg, that epitomises how her government operated for 11 years. She did not scramble a single egg that was put to her. In fact, they just sat on their eggs, and there was no scrambling whatsoever ...
Mr Styles: There were no hatchings either.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Nothing was hatched, scrambled or poached. It was all left because they lacked stick and courage to make these very difficult decisions.
It is a heck of a lot easier to leave TIO where it is, in government hands. Politically, this will be tough for our government, but we do not baulk at tough decisions. We are not here for the longevity and glory of being in government. Each of us on this side is here to make a difference and to make decisions that are right, prudent and responsible for the economic future of the Northern Territory. That is not to say we do not care about the emotional side of certain aspects of our community – for example, TIO.
However, the only real argument I heard from the Leader of the Opposition when she was talking about why we should not sell was about nostalgia, sentimentality and the emotional connection to TIO. I buy that. I understand why people feel this way. I used to be emotionally connected to paper notes when I was a child. When they became plastic, everyone said, ‘Gee whiz, I do not like these plastic notes’, but life went on. There are a million other examples of how we all have had to change the way we do things because that is the way life is; nothing stays the same. It is sad. I am the most sentimental person on the planet; I keep everything I can. I have kept every single painting my children ever painted in boxes that, inevitably, will be thrown out at some stage. I like to hold onto the past.
However, how you manage a government has to be about what is prudent, pragmatic and in the best interest of the Territory.
The Leader of the Opposition talked about the comments made by the Chamber of Commerce in the media today. She said it was unsure of the impact and had concerns. This is what this debate is all about it: it is an opportunity for those concerns to be aired and for people to become a little clearer on why we would be putting this forward. We are not meanies or bad people who are trying to make life difficult for Territorians. In fact, quite the opposite; we are trying to make a decision which is responsible. We feel the sale of the Territory Insurance Office could be the most responsible decision to make.
I note the Leader of the Opposition also talked about the importance of the Motor Accidents Compensation Scheme. I will talk a little about that this afternoon. If TIO should be sold, the Territory’s Motor Accidents Compensation Scheme would continue to be owned by the government. This is a part of the overall package we would maintain. Having said that, we would keep ownership of the Motor Accidents Compensation Scheme, but look at the new provider and insurer paying for the right to manage the Motor Accidents Compensation Scheme.
This system exists across Australia. There is no other jurisdiction in Australia in which the equivalent to MAC continues to be owned and managed by the government. There is a precedent. Once again, we are the last jurisdiction to continue to manage this.
If we sold TIO, this would be an aspect that we would keep and, essentially, outsource. There would be interest in it and what it involves. Obviously, TIO has developed a team of experts who work in this motor accidents compensation area; a group of people who are proficient and experienced in assessing claims and working out the level of need and insurance required for people who have been involved in motor vehicle accidents. In the case of TIO being sold and a provider taking over the management of MAC, those people would invariably be transferred over to the new provider. They would be employed by the new provider with all the expertise and experience to continue that very important operation.
It is important to note that in recent times – in fact on 1 July this year – the Motor Accidents (Compensation) Act was amended so the benefits applying for people who have had motor vehicle accidents are aligned with the National Injury Insurance Scheme (NIIS) standards for severe injury. This was a national scheme that has been bought it, in line with the National Disability Insurance Scheme. It pertains to people who experience catastrophic injuries and is a national scheme which provides a uniform or standardised approach to looking at the standard of care for people who have experienced a catastrophic injury and at providing a fair and reasonable level of care for these people.
MAC and the National Injury Insurance Scheme (NIIS) are aligned and in place and would continue. As the government would remain the owner of MAC and outsource the management of MAC, we would ensure that continues. That is something we have signed on to at a national level. The government would continue to have a distant approach in overseeing how MAC is managed by the new provider.
The government will be replaced by a statutory commission called the Motor Accidents Compensation Commission, a stand-alone statutory commission set up by the government to oversee the new operator’s management of the MAC Scheme. That should provide the community, the sceptics and the critics with some reassurance that government would, at arms-length, ensure through this statutory commission that the Motor Accidents Compensation Scheme is managed properly.
That mechanism exists across government where you have a statutory body that oversees the functioning of different schemes and bodies. It works in other jurisdictions. This model is used, for example, in South Australia. They have a statutory commission that manages an outsourced contract when it comes to their accident compensation scheme.
There is a precedent. There should be some confidence this would work. This is an aspect of the sale of TIO which some people, particularly people who have had an interaction with TIO through the MAC system, need to be reassured about. It would be business as usual. If a new provider came in, the statutory commission is set up and business would continue as usual with pretty much the same staff. Some people will choose to move on for whatever reason, but essentially the same staff from TIO would be employed by the new provider to provide that service, overseen by the MAC Commission statutory body. MAC would still continue to be owned by the Northern Territory government even though all other aspects of TIO would be sold if we progress the idea of selling TIO.
Much consultation and dialogue is required from this point to when we make the decision explaining, reassuring and educating people why we would make this bold and dramatic decision. We are privy to information from TIO. We have been briefed by Richard Harding, the CE of the Territory Insurance Office. He supports the sale of TIO, and the TIO Board has been and continues to be supportive of the sale of TIO. It is not to simply, brashly, or crudely sell off the assets of government, it is about being prudent.
To recap on some of the points the Chief Minister raised in his speech, we are by far one of the smallest insurers in Australia and sit well down the list. I had some statistics somewhere in front of me. That is the trouble with not writing out a speech word for word; you tend to sometimes lose the page you are referring to
However, the Territory Insurance Office competes with international insurers which are hundreds of times bigger than the TIO. The size of the banking section of TIO is 1/700th the size of the National Australia Bank. We are minute. We are one-fifth the size of the ACCU and one-third the size of the Qantas Staff Credit Union. We are tiny. TIO is ranked 23rd with less than 1% share of the total Australian market and less than 1% share of the personal lines market. In economies of scale, TIO really struggles.
Having said that, at the moment it is a great business to put on the market. As the Chief Minister has explained to us in some detail, if there was to be a catastrophic incident, if there was to be – God forbid – another cyclone like Tracy or Katherine floods on the scale of 1998, we would all suffer the effects. It would be the taxpayers of the Northern Territory who would, ultimately, carry the burden because TIO is not insured to that extent; it does not have that same backing. Do not forget that the government self-insures, so if we were wiped out by a cyclone we would have to back TIO as we are the owner. We would then also have to come up with money to pay for our own repairs, replacement, and maintenance of buildings affected by the disaster.
Madam Speaker, in closing we have commenced this dialogue. It is important to consider the risk of TIO into the future, which has been well defined by the Chief Minister. It is risky for each and every one of us to continue to own the Territory Insurance Office. TIO needs a greater diversification to survive, and by being government-owned it is severely restricted. I hark back to the comment made by the Opposition Leader, ‘You cannot unscramble an egg’. Well, sometimes scrambled eggs are good value and just want the doctor ordered.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for bringing on this debate. It is good to hear that chickens get a mention when it comes to the TIO. They probably used to insure our chicken companies when we had some in the Northern Territory.
I go back through a bit of history, thanks to the Parliamentary Library. The Report on the Establishment of an NT Government Insurance Office is from the days before there were computers because the front page has been handwritten. It was put together by a gentleman called Mr Caffin in about 1976. That was the beginning of our Territory Insurance Office and it dealt with a lot of the issues we will speak about today such as cyclone damage. That was one of the reasons it was set up.
Many people say regardless of what happened in the past, life has moved on, but it is worth reading a couple of things the CLP said when we had this campaign. You might remember it. I kept this one. The reason I kept …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, please put that down. No props.
Mr WOOD: How can I explain what I am talking about, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: Describe it.
Mr WOOD: I have this blue and white sign the same colour as the Western Bulldogs. It has a map of the Northern Territory on it and is made of polystyrene. I once moved in to have some electronic boards up there so we could do this in a way that makes sense. I will not call this a prop because I could hold up the same sheet of paper from here and say it is an example of it. That was the beginning of a major campaign to save TIO from being sold.
I have a media release from Jodeen Carney, a previous Leader of the Opposition, from January 2006 which said:
- … she has received copies of letters sent by TIO staff to the Chief Minister and Treasurer, pleading for the sale of TIO not to proceed.
‘I have letters from long-term Territorians working at TIO who are very concerned. They remember the Katherine floods and are not fooled by assurances that a condition of sale will be to provide the same cover as TIO’ …
….
Ms Carney said that her phone was running hot about this issue.
- The TIO provides local jobs, it invests in local communities, it offers insurance cover that no one else offers, and has local offices to help Territorians with their insurance and banking needs.
‘These services and jobs will be put at risk as a result of taking the TIO out of public hands and selling it to a larger insurer based in the eastern states.
Further, Ms Carney said:
- ‘This government is drunk on power and its contempt for Territorians is staggering’ …
That is what the CLP said then. I quote from Mr Terry Mills:
- While many millions of dollars are paid out in claims it only cost TIO $1m for each cyclone because they carefully and comprehensively reinsure their risks.
Why is there all this deception? Is it to mask the government’s real intent; to sell TIO to provide a one-off cash injection! A short-term gain for a long-term loss!
The CLP stands firmly opposed to the sale of TIO and will fight to see it retained.
- It was always our intent, and a responsibility that I felt quite heavily as Treasurer to understand the full risk profile for government going forward, holding on to a very small insurance and banking business in this cutthroat, highly competitive and increasingly complex game that it is today, and also a responsibility to ensure that Cabinet and government and, of course, the insurance office itself, fully understood the risks contained in holding on to it for the future. Having done all that work and made a decision to retain it, does not mean those risks go away. Those risks are as real today as they were when those reports were written and when we considered all the information.
However, we do believe with the stronger management we have in place and the work that will be done into the future between the Territory Insurance Office and the government, the close working relationship with Treasury – we are going to import added expertise of a level beyond that which Treasury can provide, the highest level competence in terms of expert guidance, support and advice for TIO that the market can produce, to ensure that those risks are managed into the future.
A lot of what is being said now was said in 2006. In 2006, TIO was not in as good a state as it is today. Unfortunately – I do not know whether it was deliberate or otherwise – we still have not received last year’s annual report. It is very difficult to have a mature debate without some facts and figures in front of you. I can use the 2012-13 report. There is some very good information in that, but there is not the information you would like to have to debate this today.
The Opposition Leader has pretty well summed up the importance of TIO from a community perspective. I understand where the Chief Minister is coming from and the arguments. I have been to a briefing with Richard Harding. However, to some extent, I heard these arguments in 2006 from Treasury and whoever was running TIO then.
You get the feeling there are some good economic arguments. However, there are sometimes companies which are more than just a formulaic body that does nothing else but collect money and pay it out. TIO is one of those companies. As I said yesterday during debate, not everybody loves insurance companies. Tell me of someone who really loves an insurance company. But if you can get 15 000 people to say they do not want their insurance company sold, you have to ask if there must be something special about that company.
I do not know whether many people in this parliament were around when that program occurred, and understand the passion of many people in relation to this issue. Of course, time has moved on and many people have come to the Territory since then. They may not have the same conviction about the TIO. They might use the insurance companies they used down south.
The Chief Minister has made many statements today about the future of TIO. He also mentioned the board. I said last night it is easy to look at what the board has said in their media release of 29 October. Bruce Carter, the chair of the board, said:
- … TIO’s current challenge is how to gain access and become part of a fully diversified book of risks like the national insurers, with access to global capital markets.
He also said:
Increasingly, the insurance market has moved to companies that can spread risk beyond a single state, territory or even country.
They are similar to the issues that were being discussed in 2006. The government decided not to sell it, and TIO has gone on and increased in profitability since then.
I again read what the chair of the board said:
- ‘Our brand has such great strength because we focus on our customers, which we are continuing to do.
‘The bottom line is TIO is a very sound business and will continue to serve the needs of Territorians, irrespective of whether it is owned by the Northern Territory Government or an existing insurance company.’
My concern is we do not have any real proof of many of the things the Chief Minister said. In other words, we have not had the ability to dig down and question in parliament – because it is very difficult to question in this type of debate – some of the things the Chief Minister has said. For instance, I have not heard any discussion about the staff except that the Chief Minister said the jobs will be retained. Who is sticking up for the staff? Who is asking the staff what they think?
When this issue was last raised in 2006, there were people on the staff who were able – uncomfortably, because they knew they could get into trouble – to come and see Terry Mills and me and say, ‘We believe we are going to lose our jobs’. Is there some proof the people in TIO House are not going to lose their jobs? They might not lose it for the first year or the second year, but a big company may say, ‘We do not need all these people because we are such a global company, we can do all the work from Sydney and just keep an office in Darwin’. Where is the guarantee of long-term employment? We do not know the companies the Chief Minister is talking to. He is, obviously, talking to companies because he said that last night. What is the deal? Is the deal to allow 250 people to keep their jobs for 10 years, or is it just for one year, then they take voluntary redundancy and the workforce disappears? I do not know.
What will the story be in relation to flood, cyclone and storm surge cover? Will the people of Katherine be paying more or less if we sell off TIO? That is the basic question people in Katherine want to know the answer to. If we sell off TIO, what guarantee is there that insurance costs will not go through the roof because we will become part of a bigger company which will not have the same concerns as TIO had for people in Katherine?
TIO is talking about having spot pricing for different parts of the Northern Territory. It is saying Katherine would probably pay more than Tennant Creek, and Alice Springs would not pay as much as Darwin. That is something we need to look at and debate why it is so, because that is not the way it is at the present time.
Will we lose a lot of the sponsorship which is specific to the Territory? Will a bigger company look at bigger brands and smaller groups will disappear? Will it just take on the AFL or the NRL and that will do? Will it take on some of the small community groups that also rely on sponsorship from TIO?
The Chief Minister said the idea of asset recycling is not the priority. I cannot really accept that. If I wanted to test it I could ask the Chief Minister if he has looked at an alternative to broaden the risk of TIO without selling it. Have you looked at going into partnership with one of the companies the Minister for Health mentioned? We are number 23 on a list of insurance companies? I do not know what we are 23 out of? Is it possible to create a partnership with another small insurance company without getting rid of TIO as it is? In other words, they share the burden but do not lose their identity. If that was a feasible option – and I believe it has some merit – the government would not accept it because this is just as much about whether TIO is feasible into the future, as to whether the Territory government will get the asset recycling money.
That is what cuts off discussion about other options because it looks like we are dealing with TIO purely on the basis of whether we can reduce its risk into the future. The issue of asset recycling is just as much part of this as whether we should sell TIO because it has some risk. I do not think that is the debate we should have.
Once we have sold this asset it is gone. The Chief Minister has given us some ideas where this asset money could go. Why would you pick a swimming pool? We all know swimming pools cost a lot of money. If you are looking at reinvesting, you reinvest into something that makes money. If you reinvest it into a debt – well, leave TIO alone. That does not make any sense at all.
That issue has to be one of the main reasons the government wants to do this. When you go on the website it does not ask if you want to sell TIO or not. It asks what we should use the money we would get from the asset recycling fund for. That makes it biased and the major reason the government wants to get rid of TIO.
I have heard some good arguments. The Chief Minister has put some reasonable arguments. I argue against Richard Harding, and he is a knowledgeable fellow. There were knowledgeable fellows in 2006 with opinions and TIO was not sold and continued to thrive.
It is interesting to read the 2012-13 annual report. Anyone involved in this debate needs to read it. The chair said, on page 6 of that report:
- TIO Operational profitability has steadily improved from $12m in 2008-09 to $73m this year. This underlying result in the current year provides the Board comfort that the business is now operating in a sustainable way. Improving efficiency and effectiveness across the organisation has been a key strategy of TIO over the past five years.
We are not dealing with a company in financial trouble. How can we make sure it is not at risk into the future? It is by being prudent in the way it operates. Mr Carter said:
- Sound prudential management is the only answer to ensuring we remain a sustainable business that will be here for Territorians when they need us the most.
That sums up where we are at present.
The issue that really concerns me is that this TIO is our TIO; it is advertised as our TIO. It says, ‘We are for Territorians’. For me, the government has not done the work it should have done. How many public meetings has the government held to put forward its point of view about the sale of TIO? Not one. The debate we are having will be a closed debate. The media might pick a bit of it up, or people may be keen to watch us on television – that may be a small group – but the general population is working, walking, driving; they are not listening to this debate. It does not matter whether we have good ideas or bad ideas; they are not going out to the people who need to listen to those debates.
If the government was fair dinkum in its desire to sell TIO, it would be talking to the people directly, not via media release or a 10-second grab of television. It would do so by having meetings in the community where it and other people can express their point of view about the sale of TIO, and the government can listen to the people.
If 15 000 of those people signed the biggest petition ever in the Northern Territory, you would think that would send a signal that people are concerned. If the government is to convince them that it ought to move in a direction which is different than in 2006, then it should consult with them. You would think it would do that. Unfortunately, the government has failed; it has not spoken to the people.
Lastly, this needs far more investigation. We have a Public Accounts Committee which has the role of doing exactly what we are talking about:
- The role of the Public Accounts Committee allows it to examine the accounts of the receipts and expenditure of the Northern Territory, and each statement and report tabled in the Legislative Assembly by the Auditor-General ... The committee may also be directed by the Legislative Assembly, the Administrator, or a Minister, to inquire into and report on any question relating to the public accounts of the Northern Territory.
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request the member be granted an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you. Madam Speaker, I therefore move that all the words after ‘acknowledges’ be omitted and the following words be inserted:
that TIO belongs to the people of the Northern Territory and before any decision is made on its future, the Assembly resolves to have all matters relating to a possible future sale of TIO scrutinised by the Public Accounts Committee and reported back to the parliament no later than 1 June 2015.
Mr Styles: Could we have a copy of that please, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: Please circulate a copy first, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: In general terms, it is not too difficult. I am asking that we take this to the PAC for it to investigate. I will argue that this would be a good thing for the PAC to look at.
The PAC has been around for a long time, investigating many things that have occurred in the Northern Territory. We have investigated the various computer programs that wasted a lot of government money because they did not work. We did not have any problem looking at that. Its role is to look at how government money is spent, how it will be spent, and the effects of programs government operates.
The government owns TIO. The government has claimed a number of things, such as that selling TIO will reduce the risk to Territorians. Let us look at it; it might be perfectly correct. We could bring in some experts and ask them. When Syd Stirling was Treasurer they held a scoping inquiry, which went for three months.
I am asking for the PAC to hold an inquiry into many of the matters brought forward by the government in this motion today. The PAC also has the ability to go into the community. The community is not just Darwin and the northern suburbs; it is Gove, where there are cyclones, Katherine, which has floods, Nauiyu, which has floods, and the rural area, where there are bushfires and cyclones. Tennant Creek receives the odd shake. I am not sure they have earthquake insurance, but occasionally a few bottles have fallen off the shelf of the Tennant Creek Hotel. They probably claim for them.
We have a very big Northern Territory where many people are customers of TIO. The PAC could ask people what they think. The government could put forward an argument for the sale of TIO and people could at least put their points of view to the PAC, which could then be passed on to government.
The advantage of the PAC is it is a bipartisan group; it is not like arguing against one another in the Chamber. It would give us all a chance to look at this debate. I have said before that I am not the golden oracle on economics, but as a person who takes an interest in these matters I reflect more of the ordinary folk who do not have that same knowledge of insurance companies.
It is not simple. I presume there are people with PhDs in insurance. I am putting this forward as a positive approach, which would be a far better way for the government to show it is supportive of the community having a say and is willing to bring both sides of parliament into the debate so we can assess the arguments it has put to see whether they stand up to scrutiny.
We could call in experts in the insurance and banking industries and look at the pros and cons of the amalgamation of insurance companies, the history of where this has happened before and learn about advantages and disadvantages. Many government insurance companies were amalgamated or sold to other companies. What were the pluses and minuses? Did the customers of those insurance companies benefit from those changes or was it about the government making some dollars to build a new railway line, port, swimming pool or equestrian centre? What were the benefits, overall, in getting rid of those government assets?
I repeat that once we have sold the asset we will never get it back. The Chief Minister talked about the days of Labor selling the Commonwealth Bank. There are a few people around today who wish the Commonwealth Bank had not been sold. A few Labor people would have been shocked at a Labor government selling the Commonwealth Bank. At least there was a government competitor, and now you have four big banks. Look at the profits they make; they are enormous. Perhaps it would have been beneficial to keep one bank with the government and putting those profits back into the community.
Medicare Private has just been privatised and listed on the stock exchange. It will raise about $4.5bn. Is it possible our TIO could become a small publicly-owned company with shareholders? We have one shareholder, which is the minister. Is there a possibility we could all buy shares in our insurance company? What is wrong with investing in our insurance company?
What is lacking in this is we have no chance of having a good debate on any alternatives – we either sell it or not. Can we have an amalgamation? There is no debate. Can we have a public company in which the community can buy shares? We cannot have that debate. It is not on the government’s agenda and would not suit it because it could not get the asset recycling fund. That is what tosses this debate and skews it. That is why we need the PAC to look at those alternatives. Those alternatives might be silly or impractical, but where do we get a chance to test them? We will not get a chance to test them in this one-sided debate: I speak, someone else speaks, we have a vote and that is the end of the debate. The PAC has the opportunity to talk these things through in a much more thorough way so it can tell the people it has investigated all these things.
It would be great to go to Katherine and pass on to people the knowledge regarding their concerns. If their concerns could be allayed – I do not know – maybe they would be happy. If people in the surge zone at Nightcliff hear that the insurance will be available for them – it was mentioned today that is one area of the Northern Territory where people find it hard to get insurance. Obviously it is not just Darwin people living in the surge zone. I lived on Bathurst Island. Most of Nguiu – I keep forgetting its new name – is in the surge zone. There are many coastal communities which would also be affected. Many of our Aboriginal communities are right on the coast. Who will insure those places?
They are some of the matters the PAC could be asked to thoroughly look at. We must not forget in this debate that there are many small communities. I spoke about Tennant Creek, Alice Springs, Katherine and Gove, but as I said, many Aboriginal communities are in cyclone areas. We need to know how they would fit into the scheme. Would they be picked up by some big insurance company, or would they be told, ‘If you want insurance from us, here is the cost, too bad, you like it or lump it’? They are some of the issues the PAC could look at. It would be carrying out the very role for which the government set it up.
Madam Speaker, I will not go on forever. My feeling is if the government has a good argument it wants to put to the people, it would be better off to do it through the PAC. It has not done it through public meetings. If it is not willing to go down that path, then why not let the PAC, as a bipartisan group, study what the consequences of selling the TIO would be, and hear what the people have to say? From a governance point of view – TIO is a government body – people expect us to make a well-reasoned and considered decision. Going through the PAC would enable that to happen.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Barkly, are you speaking to the amendment plus the motion?
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Yes, Madam Speaker. I join the debate again because it has been recurring throughout these October sittings. It seems that fair, just, legitimate and transparent alternatives being put by the opposition and the Independent member for Nelson have started to lead this debate. After placing on the public record a number of times during the October sittings my reasons and those that have come from constituents and people I have spoken to, I will respond now with common sense and good manners in a simple approach to the Chief Minister.
This debate seems to be very much led by the opposition and the member for Nelson. The government seems to be in a reactive state. As we have seen over the fortnight with challenging questions, debate and accountability, the Chief Minister continues to move the rhetoric in a reactive sense. Within the realms of common sense that makes me nervous. The Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, the lead minister, the statesman of the great Northern Territory, is continually changing the rhetoric to react to the challenge. To me, that is not confidence building, Chief Minister.
I challenge your statement that the CLP has a mandate for sale. I do not believe that or accept it. Many constituents do not believe or accept that. If that was the case, Chief Minister, using common sense and good manners, that would have been part of your platform at the 2012 election. It is such a huge matter and monumental change in public assets of the Northern Territory, it surely would have been on your policy list and platform, a dot point on those signed contracts for remote communities and a big point for going forward. But it was not. Where do you get a mandate for sale? Where does this rhetoric come from? My assessment is that it is desperation.
In a shift in rhetoric from the Chief Minister, as late as today he said the Chamber of Commerce backed this plan for sale. The CEO of the Chamber of Commerce said today the business sector across the Northern Territory did not support the sale of TIO, and that businesses in the Territory are concerned about the possibility of increased premiums.
Chief Minister, you have taken a step too far in your hasty sale plans for TIO without proper consultation with the Northern Territory community. You have taken it upon yourself to jam this through as an agenda that looks like personal ambition and interest. It could even be interpreted as an emergency plan to create the war chest so you can pork barrel your way into the 2016 election. Territorians are asking that question. Your continued reactive rhetoric does not support a balanced debate or any empirical evidence for this sale.
The opposition and the Independent member for Nelson have put clear alternatives. What is the haste? Why the rush in such a major shift?
We heard in this debate a definite lean to the sale of public assets. It will not be just TIO. We already heard the reactive shift in rhetoric around the sale of Power and Water assets and the Port of Darwin with statements that the port will not be sold; it will be a long-term lease for 99 years.
With common sense and good manners, it is definitely the opposition and the Independent member leading this debate. Nerves around the Territory are heightened with the government in this reactive role, changing the story and the rhetoric to respond to these fair, just, open and transparent challenges.
The Chief Minister also moved onto shaky ground when he talked about TIO and its risk. As I said in previous debates, he sounds like he is trying to sell a used car. On one hand he is telling Territorians about the great TIO, on the other hand he is saying we better offload it because it has this amazing risk attached to it. I do not get that sales pitch, Chief Minister. Remember, we have heard some empirical evidence from previous annual statements where the TIO stood proud and talked about a $60m profit.
TIO also represents Territorians and a very unique insurance product for Territorians. I must mention it is not all just about Darwin, it is also about Borroloola. I remember the devastating effects of Cyclone Cathy, the impact on the gulf savannah area and the flooding on Rockhampton Down Station. Those are impacts of very severe cyclones that intensify within the shallow, warm Gulf of Carpentaria and have a broader impact on the centre of the Territory, particularly the Barkly region.
Territorians living in these areas also share in the strength, unity and confidence of TIO – the Territory company that will respond to Territory conditions. In Borroloola, there is heightened infrastructure due to the previous Labor government. We heard stories in this place of desperate ministers and that Labor never did anything. We have $5.5m worth of new education infrastructure in the new school at Borroloola. It is supported by an incredible sports oval that was additional to the $5.5m. Then, in partnership with the McArthur River Mine Community Benefit Trust, we got a swimming pool. The Chief Minister talked about a swimming pool; Borroloola has a swimming pool. That is one example of improved, sophisticated infrastructure and of a growing area, a growth town, matched by businesses, housing and residents, all living under that unique Territory cover.
It is important we get this right. The Chief Minister does not need to rush this through. Clear alternatives have been presented and I would like him to seriously consider them. He continually reverts to a defensive position of, ‘Let us sell it so we can build new infrastructure’. The member for Blain itemised what he considered as higher productive infrastructure, including a swimming pool. In this semantic battle in the Legislative Assembly he might be embarrassed about that comment and a little upset I am using it in debate. I continually remind him, ‘Welcome to the Legislative Assembly, we all have to start somewhere’. I have had my fair share of abuse and ridicule, but I carry on.
Let us discuss the swimming pool because the Chief Minister used that to defend the member for Blain and shifted the argument to an Olympic-size pool. He also created this new rhetoric around an Olympic-size swimming pool that could support major events. That is what we saw over a couple days of reactive debate. ‘That was a bit embarrassing. We will shift that; we will recreate that concept. Member for Barkly, this is not just about a swimming pool, this is about an Olympic-size swimming pool. This is about an aquatic centre that will support a national level of competition.’
I ask the Chief Minister what consultation has he done with the local government sector about the handover of government infrastructure for management, maintenance and repairs? What level of consultation has there been with the local government sector, which I presume will accept this infrastructure, in recurrent funding for its operational parameters? That is a fair question and I would like the Chief Minister to answer that in his response in this debate.
The Chief Minister then shifted the rhetoric to another level in the debate. ‘Here is the deal breaker; we could build a performing arts centre.’ He certainly sold the snake oil to the member for Barkly. I had this vision of a performing arts centre. Then I had a fantasy about the possibility of the Longtails and the Scorpions scoring a gig there and being on the big stage of this new performing arts centre in the city of Darwin, maybe in the city of Palmerston or Adelaide River. I am not sure; we do have not any details. Once again, has there been any consultation about the ongoing management and governance model of such a facility?
I had an immediate reality check when I became lost in those images of the Scorpions on stage at the new performing arts centre. What about the Darwin Entertainment Centre? Has there been any consultation with the Darwin Entertainment Centre? It is one of the jewels in the crown of this fair city. Under the stewardship of Mr Alan James the place is bigger and better than ever. The Darwin Entrainment Centre represents that incredible arena for the performing and visual arts. I have been to exhibitions in the Darwin Entertainment Centre; it sits in the middle of this fair city and is going from strength to strength. If those board members, the general manager and staff have been listening to this debate and the reactive output they suddenly heard that the Chief Minister will cash in on TIO and build a new performing arts centre, they will wonder where the Darwin Entertainment Centre will fit. These are questions that are continually emerging.
I revert back to the position of the opposition and the Independent member: stop the bus and let us receive a reality check, with the people of the Northern Territory who own this asset. The people of the Northern Territory deserve a say in this major policy shift within a government that has no mandate to do this as they have never put it to the test of the people.
The member for Nelson has just given another alternative for the government to consider: that this issue be examined, researched and assessed by the Public Accounts Committee. There are some alternatives: a referendum, an election or a Public Accounts Committee referral. They are fair and open, and I ask the Chief Minister to consider them.
The lastest thing to have concerned me in this shift of rhetoric, the reaction to the real challenges coming from the other side of the House, is the Chief Minister saying, in one of his rapid fire, hyperactive moments, that they have buyers lined up. They do not have one buyer, but a selection of buyers. They have already done the deal. I reflected on a very important point the Leader of the Opposition made. She asked when all this started. A March date has emerged. The Chief Minister told the House that TIO brought a submission to the CLP Cabinet.
The Leader of the Opposition reminded me of the fundamentals in Cabinet processes, in that a minister brings a Cabinet submission to the Cabinet process. The Chief Minister took leave to sit down and not go any further after that rapid-fire one-off reactive statement that now reflects that a deal has already been done. That raised great reservations with me as a representative of many people in the Northern Territory residing in the Barkly and beyond. Many people raise this issue with me when they realise I am a member of parliament; they choose to make their feelings known.
Chief Minister, there is some real concern. You do not have the leadership credentials in this debate to go any further forward. The opposition and the member for Nelson have offered clear alternatives, and they should be considered on behalf of all Territorians, particularly those members opposite. The people of Borroloola who have been through Cyclone Kathy, the people of Katherine who have been though those devastating floods, and as the Leader of the Opposition has noted, the people of Darwin who have been through Cyclone Tracy, are Territorians who can tell real stories. They are not only stories of survival, but of rebuilding and of an institution, the Territory Insurance Office, which played a critical role in making sure that happened. It was not so much after Cyclone Tracy, but Katherine is a very good example of the Territory Insurance Office role. From that event and those timely payments that reflected a Territory designed and delivered insurance product, TIO went from strength to strength and has solidified its financial base to deliver in that space should those events happen in the future.
We have a brand and a product, but we also have solidarity with the people. That is the intrinsic example the Chief Minister should consider: that the people have values and celebrate identity, and it is about the Territory. Sure enough, if you want to run down this road of asset sales that is a major shift in policy, then take it to an election, hold a referendum or refer this matter to the Public Accounts Committee. They are very clear alternatives.
Madam Speaker, I hope the Chief Minister takes this debate in good faith and does not call me a coward. I hope he responds to some of my questions and this debate continues. I hope the bus will be stopped and there will be some clarity. I hope this issue, which seems to be a chain reaction of public asset sales by the CLP in the midterm of a government being challenged, will not continue without the real accountability, transparency and openness that should be applied to such major changes in policy position.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I have not yet participated in a decision to sell TIO, because I have not yet been convinced, as no member on this side of the House has been convinced.
However, having made those observations, that does not prevent us from looking at the sale of TIO. The idea of selling TIO comes from a very simple idea. I wonder what the opinion of the members of this House would be if somebody walked up to the government and said, ‘I will give you an outrageous figure’ – let us say $5bn – ‘for TIO’? It would be recklessly irresponsible of government to say, ‘No we will not do it’ because of all of the reasons we have heard outlined today.
I am reminded of an old quote attributed to, variously, Groucho Marx and George Bernard Shaw, as well as Lord Beaverbrook – depending on how far you go back – which reflects on a conversation between, originally reported, Lord Beaverbrook and an American actress. The conversation went something like this:
- Madam, would you sleep with me for $1m?
The actress replied:
- Certainly, Lord Beaverbrook, I would not hesitate.
Lord Beaverbrook then said:
- Madam, would you sleep with me for $1?
At which point the actress replied:
- Absolutely not, Lord Beaverbrook, what sort of woman do you think I am?
To which Lord Beaverbrook replied:
- We have already established that, we are merely haggling over price.
That is exactly what the conservation is about today. We can say we have all of these lofty ideals when it comes to the sale of TIO, but if the price was right, then the question would beg – which I have not heard from members opposite and the member for Nelson – what is the appropriate price?
Could you imagine if the price was very good, what you could do with that money? Mitigate flood risk in Katherine by virtue of building levees which would cost you about $20m is one of the things you could do. An ambulatory care centre at the hospital would provide better services, particularly for those people who are affected by accidents – the very same type of accidents the MAC Scheme covers. I am prepared, as a minister of this government, to look at a financial asset to see if we can turn it into any other form of real asset to the advantage of the people we serve, the people of the Northern Territory.
Let us consider the position of TIO if we are prepared to concede there must be somewhere on the money scale that all members of this House would be ultimately prepared to sell TIO for. If the price is right, it would be irresponsible of a government or a parliament not to do so. That is what we have to look at and what the Chief Minister is talking about. If the price was right imagine what we could do for the people of the Northern Territory. Today we are hearing criticism heaped upon the Chief Minister for mentioning the possibility.
We are hearing arguments structured on the negative effects on policyholders of TIO and people who are not policyholders but beneficiaries of its operation in the community. The argument run by the Leader of the Opposition is that TIO sponsors this and that, and it is a good corporate citizen. I argue that a number of other insurance companies are good corporate citizens around Australia and the world. In fact, a number of good companies which are good corporate citizens are not insurance companies, such as INPEX and ConocoPhillips, and they sponsor any number of smaller sporting organisations and cultural activities in the Northern Territory. In fact, Mr Kuroda, Chairman of INPEX, went so far as to say he would be extremely uncomfortable working in the Northern Territory unless he had the social licence to do so. Many companies consider social licence to be part of their structure.
However, that is what the members opposite argue. Let us talk about the people the member for Nelson and members opposite are talking about: those affected by TIO remaining in a position of what I consider substantial vulnerability. That comes down to a conversation about a single word identified and understood by the Leader of the Opposition: risk. She described TIO as a small insurer – and it is tiny. The Minister for Health mentioned TIO having less than 1% of the Australian marketplace.
A further issue needing to be considered by members of this House is that TIO, as an organisation, has its risk substantially embedded in a small marketplace when it comes to its number of policyholders, and it is also geographically highly vulnerable. If you consider its major area of policyholders, namely Darwin, it is extremely vulnerable when it comes to cyclones. Currently, policyholders in Alice Springs and other areas, I presume, pay their policy premiums as an offset to the way TIO needs to spread its risk internally.
The standard argument we heard from members opposite is that TIO reinsures, and I am sure it does. The standard behaviour of any insurance company is to spread its risk. However, those insurance companies do not spread their risk completely. I am unsure how much the reinsurance costs of TIO are, but as a small operator I can bet you London to a brick its reinsurance costs are substantial. All of this serves to put upward pressure on TIO premiums.
Let us think about what an insurance policy is. The Chief Minister alluded to it in his opening comments on this motion in relation to how Lloyds of London was established. Picture a number of people who want to share a risk. Every person has, let us say, a $200 exposure to a risk and 20 people then determine to place $10 each into a jar on an annual basis in case one of them gets hurt, then they can spread the risk amongst them. If one of them does get hurt, or their $200 worth of exposure is realised in a real calamity, they can reach into the jar and take out the $200. The next year everybody pays in again, noticing that the first person who was insured, effectively, through that system, managed to survive long enough to be a contributor again into that insurance bucket. That is not an unreasonable principle and that is basically how the insurance marketplace works.
Some insurance policyholders reflect a greater risk than others. We heard the example used by the Leader of the Opposition about a gentleman in Katherine who struggled to get flood insurance because the property he was seeking to insure was so heavily exposed that it is almost certain, at some point in the not-so-distant future, he will have to make a claim. What the Leader of the Opposition remained silent about is that claim will have to be made against somebody else’s premiums.
The Leader of the Opposition is starting to argue that a person who finds themselves in a circumstance where they are highly exposed to risk makes a claim against others who are less exposed to risk. In those circumstances, insurers say, ‘No, if you are going to be in a place where you have heightened risk then you will pay a premium that reflects the quality and level of the risk you carry’.
Let us talk about all the other people who are paying this extra premium – this tax for lack of a better word, except that it is a voluntary payment – into the same bucket of money, yet there is one person saying, ‘I will only put in my amount consummate with everybody else, but behave in a fashion which carries so much more risk’. According to the Leader of the Opposition, that is fair because you do not get to see those other premium payers, they just continue paying their premiums. As a general principle they do not make claims against the insurance policies they have, but they still pay the premium. There is a premium on that premium every time the risk profile becomes challenged because of particular vulnerabilities within that risk profile.
TIO is a small insurer with less than 1% of the market in a place where there are high levels of risk, namely Katherine and Darwin, where floods and cyclones occur. TIO is telling us it has a risk profile. The risk is spread even further, according to the members opposite, because that risk is spread to the taxpayer of the Northern Territory. If TIO has to pay out beyond the capacity of its reinsurance, whatever that is, then there is a government guarantee at the other end. That is really what this argument is about: the government guarantee; the promise at the other end that there will be a government which will bail it out if everything else turns to custard. That is what this conversation is really about.
In prayers in this House every morning, we finish the first part of the prayer before the Lord’s Prayer with the line ‘for the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory’. By exposing the people of the Northern Territory to a risk in a private company or business, am I really doing what that prayer demands of me and adhering to the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory, or am I alternately saying that we are a government that is in business and will underwrite that business with taxpayers’ dollars?
I have heard questions all this week about government assisting Melville and Bathurst Islands, the Tiwi Islands, with a loan to support business there, with members opposite screaming that it is corrupt to do so. In the next breath they simply say government must underwrite an insurance company to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, and it is our social duty to do so. That is not a consistent approach to government and to the exposure of the people of the Northern Territory.
I would like to remove – if the price is right – taxpayers’ exposure to insurance liability which could be spread extra-jurisdictional, rather than intra-jurisdictional as currently is the case.
One of the first speeches I ever heard in this place in 1997 was from former Administrator Neil Conn in his Address-in-Reply. I do not remember much about this speech except for one line, ‘Government in business is government in the wrong business’. That has resonated with me from that day to this in how I have watched government attempt to flirt with the business environment. To demonstrate how clunky that business environment is, the mere decision of a government to dispose of an asset – if government chooses to do so – is being done in such a fashion as to diminish the value of that asset in the sale process.
This is where I turn my mind to the proposed amendment by the member for Nelson, who said, ‘Let us flick this off to the PAC’ …
Mr Wood: In the true tradition of the Attorney-General when he was in opposition
Mr ELFERINK: I will ignore that.
Let us say we were in the marketplace and receiving expressions of interest. I imagine, with the conversation we have had now, there are a number of expressions of interest in the pipeline. I do not like government being in business because, according to the member for Nelson, it has to be the right way to sell this product, if we are going to sell it at all. He is not saying do not do it, he is saying do it under the right circumstances, if I understand his argument correctly.
He said, ‘We want to sell the car’. That is fine, but how are we going to sell the car? We can do it quickly and make sure we sell it, as people would purchase it on the basis of what it looks like now. Alternatively, we can create a committee so when we go into the marketplace and try to sell the car it will be saddled with the opinion of everybody in that committee process. We will have people making all sorts of assertions about how TIO should or should not work, what it is worth and is not worth, etcetera. We would certainly not do it quickly. What better way to create a run on the banking arm of TIO than to undermine the certainty of a potential purchaser through scaring the people who have their money in the TIO banking arm ...
Mr Wood interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: I hear the member for Nelson groan, but the fact is …
Mr Wood: You forget the people in the process.
Mr ELFERINK: I have not forgotten the people. The very people who are attached to the banking arm are the people I do not want to see singed because you are busy pushing this stuff through a committee and devaluing the property in the process …
Mr Wood: That is an opinion. You do not devalue it at all.
Mr ELFERINK: You are wrong.
Mr Wood: You are wrong.
Mr ELFERINK: You are wrong, and I will explain to you why. You will create an environment where people will start saying, ‘If they are going to sell this thing, I will pull my investments out of TIO. I will find insurance somewhere else, because I am hearing all of this noise about it. I will take my money out of the bank and put it into Westpac because I am hearing all this noise about it.’
All of a sudden, the banking arm and the insurance arm are worth a whole lot less …
Mr Wood: That is called the annual report.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, but it will not be worth that by the time you finish doing an autopsy on it. You have to be able to sell the product as it is, not as it will be by the time you finish embarrassing it. That is what the member for Nelson does not understand. ‘Farm it out to a committee’, he said. Farm it out to a committee, and watch people get nervous about it, start pulling their money out of the bank and finding insurance elsewhere. All of a sudden, something that may have been worth X is suddenly worth something substantially less than Y. ‘That is all right,’ says the member for Nelson, ‘We have taken the people with us and, in the process, devalued the product and exposed the risk of remaining policyholders even further’.
Government in business is government in the wrong business. The member for Nelson is trying to template a commercial decision into a legislative process. That is why government should not be occupying the space of being in business.
Mr Wood interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I have all comments directed through to the Speaker’s Chair please.
Mr ELFERINK: That is why I hear the member for Nelson railing – which he rarely does in this place – because he thinks the whole world can be run by a committee. The commercial world does not operate in that fashion – one of the good reasons for government not to be in business ...
Mr Wood: Give me a break! You just do not want to be scrutinised …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, can you stop the interjection please.
Mr Wood: You said to put the interjections through you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I said all …
Mr Wood: I was just putting them through you.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, you have the floor. Can everyone else please stop interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: The member for Nelson would seriously devalue the product through what he is arguing. It would be positively the most reckless thing we could do in how TIO is managed. TIO is a commercial entity that runs on a commercial basis. I also heard the member for Nelson say it is doing really well. Yes, at the moment it is doing really well …
Mr Wood: Better this year.
Mr ELFERINK: That is right. But guess what? I do not know if the member for Nelson has ever sat on a plane, but sometimes you fly through turbulence and sometimes you do not. If you sit on a plane long enough, it will find some turbulence again. When you take something into a marketplace and look to the value of that product in the marketplace – when are you going to do that? When the car has a dent in the front fender or when the car is looking clean and tidy? I know what I would rather be selling. I remain implacably …
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I seek an extension of time for the minister.
Motion agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK: I remain implacably bound to the concept of what I described at the outset today: only if the price is right.
I have heard members opposite arguing that we should not go anywhere near the sale of this simply because it is TIO and it is a local product. They have not even asked what the price is. That is reckless and ill-informed. I am critical of the members of the Labor Party for taking that very strident position without considering what may be on offer and what that money can be used for.
I am even more critical of the member for Nelson for attempting to move this amendment by virtue of the fact that through the process he is describing, he is guaranteed to diminish its value even if we got to the marketplace. The way the member for Nelson would present this product into the marketplace is he would take a good-looking valuable vehicle, bash it up with a sledge hammer for a while, then wonder why he could not recover the price originally offered before he went into the committee stages. That is precisely what his process would accomplish.
It is for that reason I argue that government in business remains government in the wrong business. Governments should make decisions in relation to the legislative structures and the processes of running government. They are, invariably, not commercial institutions. Commercial institutions belong in the commercial world. Whilst government may encourage commercial conduct and may even underwrite it, from time to time, for the purposes of developing the general economy, simply sitting on an asset because that asset is theirs and there is an emotional bond to it, irrespective of the sale price that may be offered, is unwise. It is perfectly rational for a government to look at the value of a product. It is even more rational for a government not to diminish the value of that product by going through some committee process that no other sale of asset has to go through in any other part of the commercial world.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for bringing this discussion into the House. I reiterate that the decision has not been taken, but it has to be examined. Any rational government would do so. I reject any irrational decision to diminish the value of a product in the process of trying to see if anybody is interested in purchasing it.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Mr Deputy Speaker, I speak to this motion and the amendment before the House regarding the future of TIO.
TIO is a Territory-owned insurer, a Territory asset. It is coming through loud and clear across the Territory that Territorians do not want it sold; there are deep concerns. I welcome the fact that we are having more debate in the Chamber about it. However, I have serious questions about the level of the apparent mature debate and whether or not we are seeing any genuine consultation with Territorians regarding the future of TIO.
First, I address the amendment to the motion from the member for Nelson to refer any potential sale to the Public Accounts Committee. I support the amendment; that process should take place. The PAC should be looking at TIO and the impact of any potential sale. There will probably be some highly sensitive information going through the PAC, but it is important to remember we can go through an in-camera process. Territorians have the right to see the pathway the government is going down further scrutinised. The PAC could hold hearings and members on the committee could ask some serious questions about what the sale would mean to Territorians.
People deserve answers, so I urge the government to support the amendment the member for Nelson has moved; it is sound and sensible. Territorians deserve further scrutiny of the potential impacts of a sale of TIO.
It appears the government will not support the amendment because it has made up its mind. Last night in the Chamber we heard the Chief Minister say the government was seeking final offers for TIO. ‘When the final offer comes in, we will move extremely quickly if we decide to make the sale.’
It seems clear that the government is determined to go down this path of selling TIO. It wants to get its hands on the cash raised from selling TIO and will use that cash to fund commitments going into 2016.
The motion we are debating is part of what the government calls ‘a mature debate’. We have heard lots about mature debate in the Territory, and in Canberra through the Prime Minister. It is important, if we are to engage in a mature debate, that we discuss the potential sale with the people who own TIO, Territorians.
We need proper consultation as part of the process. The government understands this is not a popular decision with Territorians. If it felt this was a popular decision and something Territorians wanted, it would have been open and transparent during the Casuarina by-election, rather than waiting until the Monday after the election to make its intent clear with the full-page advertisement and launch of a website asking Territorians for ideas on what the sale of TIO could fund in the Territory.
In the consultation and mature discussion on the website, it asks what could be done with the money from the potential sale of TIO. The government asks for suggestions but not, ‘Do you want TIO to be sold, yes or no?’
In my electorate the message is coming through loud and clear. Territorians do not want to see TIO sold. People I would not generally expect to see come to my electorate office to sign the petition. I leave that petition at the front of my office and it fills easily. People do not want to see TIO sold, they want to keep it in the hands of Territorians.
If the government was really serious about consulting with Territorians to hear their views and make them count as part of this so-called mature debate about the sale of TIO, then they would engage in real consultation with them. Why is it we are not seeing any plans for public forums in Darwin, a place which is affected by cyclones, where people in storm surge zones want coverage? They want to know if we are unfortunate enough go through a natural disaster, as we have seen happen many times in the Territory, that they have coverage. It is those people who are very deeply affected by the potential sale of TIO.
Why is it we are not seeing a more open and accountable process, where the government puts its case to Territorians about what would happen with the sale of TIO, and Territorians have their say and ask the hard questions there and then? Why would you not hold this type of process in Katherine which is subject to flooding? You could do the same in Alice Springs where there are houses subject to flooding. You could let people have a say and ask the hard questions of the government and TIO about the potential sale and what it would mean.
I cannot understand why the government would not want to support a committee process. It is very clear it wants to make a very quick sale out of TIO and move through this issue as quickly as possible. They have been discussing this internally since March, when we put the hard questions to them about what they were doing with TIO. Previously they would say nothing was on the table, nothing was off the table. Now we see it is very much on the table.
Granted, it appears the government wants to rush through the sale of TIO, but why not have a Public Accounts Committee process so we can thoroughly scrutinise the implications? I wonder if the government will look at the petitions being signed by thousands of Territorians to not sell TIO. Would it take that into account? What genuine consultation is it doing with the business sector?
Today we heard the Chamber of Commerce say that businesses do not want to see TIO sold. They are deeply worried about what will happen to their premiums if TIO is sold. Why is the government not engaging in mature and meaningful debate with the Territory’s business community with regard to the sale of TIO? If you really want to engage in mature debate and go down the pathway of consulting Territorians about what the sale of TIO would mean and whether or not they want to see it happen, why not go to the ultimate consultation process and take it to 2016 election and see what Territorians have to say then?
No, it will not do that, because clearly it wants to make a quick cash grab. It is trying to ram through the sale of TIO and Territorians do not want it sold. Territorians rely on and trust TIO. They know they can depend on TIO and its products to support them through thick and thin, and TIO has been very good to them over the years. Its service is first-rate, it employs locals and it is a great insurer.
People do not trust government spin and the statements about TIO. The government is saying the premiums will be left intact if it is sold and Territory jobs and community support would continue. Territorians do not trust a government that makes these statements when it has, so far, gone back on many promises it has made to them. It promised reducing the cost of living for Territorians, then put their power and water bills right through the roof. It promised frontline jobs were safe, then got rid of teachers. It promises it will keep TIO staff, Territorians, in jobs if it was to sell. We have already seen what happened to the bus service with drivers losing pay and conditions. It is little wonder Territorians do not trust the government with regard to TIO and its future if it is privatised.
I hope the government, as part of its mature debate, actually listens to Territorians. I hope it takes on board the member for Nelson’s amendment to go to the PAC. If you are really serious about this, what do you have to hide from the PAC? Let this debate and scrutiny of a potential sale of TIO happen so we can see what the impact would be for Territorians.
Ultimately, our job is helping Territorians and making the Territory a better place, so it is important when you are considering the sale of a Territory asset, TIO, that Territorians are asked what they think and whether they want this to happen? Show them what it will mean to them. By going to the PAC, you can allow for that additional scrutiny that should take place, rather than ramming through the sale of TIO so you can get your hands on some short-term money.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope we see some further scrutiny around the potential sale of TIO. I hope we see some genuine consultations with Territorians about the sale of TIO and what it will all mean, and whether they want to see it happen or not. I hope the potential sale of TIO goes through the PAC for further scrutiny.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Chief Minister’s motion regarding TIO. There has been an amendment moved by the member for Nelson, I will also now speak against that.
I do not think I can take too long to explain my position on this motion the Chief Minister has brought before the House. In dealing with the member for Nelson’s amendment, over the course of the last six-and-a-bit years I have been a member of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly and I could not count on both hands and feet the number of times the member for Nelson has wanted to take something to a committee.
It seems the member for Nelson is terminally frightened of any decisions any government makes. It does not only apply to the Country Liberals government; he did it to the Labor Party as well when they were in power before August 2012. The member for Nelson’s position, generally, is to default back to, ‘Let us take it to a committee. Let us not make a decision, let us delay this. Let us wait a while and do some more work around this.’ However, the member for Nelson fails to grasp that there is, in some cases, some urgency to decisions made by government, and things have to get on.
I will quickly deal with the member for Nelson’s amendment. I will not be supporting his suggestion we take this matter to the Public Accounts Committee. This is a matter for the government and TIO to perform the requisite consultation everybody in this House has been talking about.
Today I have heard the word ‘Katherine’ used by members of the opposition more than I have heard it used in the previous six years I have been in this House ...
Mr Conlan: Yes, they use it when it suits them.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: ‘Use it when it suits them’ – I pick up on the interjection by the member for Greatorex. Yes, they use it when it suits them, when it is convenient to prosecute their argument. Outside that, the Labor Party has no interest at all in Katherine, other than to use it for its perverse political purposes. That has clearly been demonstrated throughout this debate on TIO. The Labor Party has never been a political force to be reckoned with in the Katherine electorate because it treats Katherine people and the town itself with disrespect and disdain. It has done it ever since I have been politically aware.
For them to now start crowing about Katherine and wanting to champion the cause of the people of Katherine is incredibly thin and lame. It is a veneer. Underneath that, there is no feeling by the Labor opposition for anything good that could be a part of Katherine. I am amazed. It is quite nice to hear my home town and my electorate mentioned in parliament, but there are plenty of other circumstances under which I would like Katherine to be referred to, not the way the Labor Party is using it today, and using it, it is.
The opposition members are essentially suggesting the government is not taking this issue seriously. They are accusing us of all sorts of things: not caring, not consulting, not worrying about the impacts on people or what will happen to insurance policies. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Standing here today, I am a testament to how much this government cares about what is going on with TIO. The fact that the Chief Minister has brought this motion into the House is testament to how much we care about how TIO goes forward and what that will mean to the people of the Northern Territory.
Quite rightly, the opposition has pointed out there are, potentially, some serious implications should TIO be sold. I pick up on things my colleagues have said during this debate already: that no firm decision has been taken to sell TIO, but if it is sold, then there are some potentially serious implications to that.
Unless there is an imperative, I would not support the sale of TIO; none of us would. None of us would do this just because we can and because it seems like a good idea at the time. None of us would do this for the reason outlined by the member for Wanguri: for a quick cash grab. Nothing could be further from the truth. It disappoints me immensely to hear comments like that from the member for Wanguri. She is an intelligent, articulate lady, and to start sprouting comments like that diminishes her in the eyes of all the people in this room.
Bearing in mind that if this so-called cash grab that has been bandied about by members of the opposition was to occur, it would amount to, as the Chief Minister has well and truly pointed out, the building of infrastructure in the Northern Territory. The money would be used in a future infrastructure fund for the Territory to go into projects that are needed …
Mr Elferink: Katherine flood levee.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I pick up on the interjection by the member for Port Darwin. He has just mentioned a Katherine flood levee. There is no doubt in my mind that Katherine will have another flood at some point in time. There was a big one in 1998, a smaller one in 2006. Before that the previous one was 1957. In each case, properties were damaged, insurance was called into play and people had their lives damaged and ruined. Their homes were destroyed in many cases, and it is not a very nice thing to go through.
I was caught in the 2006 flood. I owned a property in Katherine on Gorge Road where my wife and I ran a bed and breakfast business. In 2006 we had about 2 m of water flowing through the accommodation near the river. We had to go through the process of closing the business, claiming insurance and all those things.
If there was some flood mitigation measure built in Katherine, some of the effects of flooding – when it happens again – could well be mitigated. The idea of a levee has been bounced around in Katherine for quite some time. We know they cost a lot of money and the questions are: (a) would it be effective, and (b) where do you get the money from? I am no hydrologist but am sure there are many smart people who could design the infrastructure for Katherine to protect the town from flooding. As far as the money goes, if the sale of TIO was to go ahead, a project to mitigate the effects of flood and natural disasters in the Territory sits nicely underneath the auspices of an infrastructure spend.
If I am informed correctly, Roma, in Queensland, had a flood levee built a number of years ago after some major flooding. The immediate effect after that was insurance premiums dropped to billy-o. They reduced significantly because the risk of flood no longer existed.
If we go down the path of selling TIO, the proceeds need to go towards the type of flood mitigation I have referred to, thereby counteracting any suggestions that premiums might rise under a new structure for TIO.
It is disappointing to hear the rhetoric from the opposition regarding this. It brings me to the point of what the Labor government did about this when it was in power. There has been a lot of talk about the attempted sale in 2005. During that time there was a Natural Disaster Mitigation Program fund set up by the Commonwealth. The funding program went from 2003 to 2009. Funding under the National Disaster Mitigation Program ceased with the Commonwealth’s contribution included in the new National Partnership Agreement on Natural Disaster Resilience. The NDMP was a national program aimed at identifying and addressing natural disaster risk priorities across the nation such as floods, bushfires and tropical cyclones. I have been provided with some details of the funds applied for from 2003 to 2009 underneath the old mitigation program and will give a few examples.
In Tasmania, the Launceston City Council Launceston levee works program upgraded the existing ageing levee system to a one-in-200-year flood level. The upgrade protected 640 homes, approximately 78 businesses, 16 government services, a university and a museum. The Launceston City Council was granted $13m from that fund. In South Australia, the city of Norwood undertook First Creek flood mitigation works with a grant of $280 000. In Queensland, the Esk Shire Council was granted $150 000 for flood priorities and inundation events arising from flooding of the Brisbane River to enable appropriate planning, mitigation and response strategies to be implemented.
I could go on, but from 2003 to 2009 a large sum of money was given out for mitigation of disasters. I will list the amount over five years by state: the ACT got $2m, New South Wales got $23m, Queensland got $19m, South Australia got $6.8m, Tasmania got $16m, Victoria got $7m and WA got $9.8m.
I turn to the amount of money granted to the NT in Labor’s period of government. Bear in mind that this money did not arrive automatically on the doorstep; as a government you had to be proactive and apply to the federal government for that money. For the Northern Territory, for grants under that federal government Natural Disaster Mitigation Program fund, in 2003-04 there were no applications; in 2004-05 there was one; in 2005-06 there was one; in 2006-07 there were no applications; in 2007-08 there were five grants; and in 2008-09 there were four. That came to a grand total of $2.3m to the Northern Territory in five years for disaster mitigation. Let me point out that not one of those applications to the federal government for disaster included mitigation for floods. What a disgrace.
The opposition, during its reign of 11 very long years, had the opportunity to get money from the federal government to help mitigate against disasters such as the Katherine floods. It did almost nothing except to get the Territory into debt.
If the Labor Party members’ memories have faded since that period from 1998 to 2003, I can forgive them as it was a few years after the flood. Maybe they forgot about the Katherine flood, that would not surprise me. Surely after the 2006 flood, when this grant scheme was still in existence, the Labor government could have applied to the federal government to mitigate for floods around Katherine. But no, it did nothing.
That goes back to the original point I made about the number of times I have heard Katherine mentioned in this room today compared with what I have heard from the Labor opposition over the past six years since I have been in this House. It is a telling story about the very thin veneer of Labor when its members talk about how they care for the people of Katherine.
This afternoon we have all heard much about TIO and the position it is in. I commend the Chief Minister for his motion in the House this afternoon, which is supported. I do not need to repeat many of the things that have already been said in this House. However, one thing I will say again is that it would be only for very good and sound reasons – the reasons articulated by the Chief Minister and others on this side of the House – that I would support the sale of TIO. That applies to all of my colleagues. It would only be for good and sound reason that we would consider this.
Do you think we want to visit upon ourselves all the grief of negative public opinion? Do you think we would be doing this just for the heck of it, just to stir up some public hornets’ nest? Do you think we like having the Labor opposition and the member for Nelson berate us in this House over our considerations in this space? No, we do not but we are not doing this just on a whim; consideration is being given to this for very good reason.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I have said everything I need to say this afternoon. I support the original motion put forward by the Chief Minister.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Mr Deputy Speaker, we support TIO. I welcome the tone of the member for Katherine’s contribution; it was certainly more temperate than other speakers in this House. I agree with the member for Wanguri that when you listen to the Chief Minister speak on this subject you cannot help but think the CLP is moving to a quick fire sale. When he said last night that they are looking at final offers and there is the possibility of a quick sale, how could you come to any other conclusion? The tone of the member for Katherine’s contribution was better, but we feel there is no rush or need to panic-sell TIO as there are plenty of things we need to look at and discuss. On our side, our basic default position is not to support the sale of TIO. That has been communicated very well by our members, led by the Leader of the Opposition.
There are very sound reasons we have a Territory Insurance Office. TIO has purpose and value. You can find that out yourself by reading TIO’s Statement of Corporate Intent which explains its purpose and value:
- At its inception TIO was created to resolve failures in the marketplace in the areas of workers compensation … and motor accidents compensation. Over the years, TIO has diversified to include commercial operations. Today’s TIO purpose has evolved into:
‘Helping build confidence and resilience in the Territory’.
TIO holds a special position in the NT marketplace and understands the elements and lifestyle of the Territory that make it unique. TIO aims to utilise its special position and market knowledge to build the confidence of Territorians that their assets and possessions are protected, by creating financial confidence through helping Territorians achieve the goal of home ownership and financial security through investment. Utilising our specialist knowledge will also build community resilience, the ability to protect against loss and to quickly ‘bounce back’ from personal property and injury incidents, catastrophic events and motor vehicle trauma.
TIO started to address market failure. Is TIO still able to address market failure? On our side, we believe TIO is still providing guarantees and confidence in the Territory marketplace. The CLP has not answered, with confidence, the question of that being lost with the sale of TIO. We want to guarantee there are good insurance products in the Northern Territory with good terms and conditions at a competitive rate. That is why TIO is there. We want to make sure other insurance companies provide good products at a fair price. We want it to be a competitive marketplace, and the existence of TIO in the Territory marketplace ensures that. That is our belief and that has not been challenged.
The Leader of the Opposition spoke about MAC and workers compensation in her contribution. Why TIO first came to address market failure in those areas was explained in the Statement of Corporate Intent. Others may provide flood and cyclone insurance, but TIO guarantees this product is in the market at a competitive rate with good terms and conditions. This is why we support TIO. TIO is here to address market failure; that is why it was created.
The effect of the loss on Territorians has not been explained in a sufficient way by the CLP. We support the TIO because we know from experience and lessons from past disasters that TIO is there for Territorians. There were Katherine lessons and Darwin lessons. That is why TIO is loved by some, respected by many.
At my office, it is similar to what the member for Wanguri was saying about the petition being signed. I believe other members of this House have said it and the member for Nelson spoke with great confidence on it. People stop to talk about TIO. They talk about their sentimental attachment to TIO which was formed through experience. It is not because they like a poster, it is because they have had a personal experience of being well served by TIO that leads them to trust TIO and its product. It is a sentiment that has been formed through experience.
The sale of public assets is often a highly-heated debate. It has been highly contested in every jurisdiction and is one reason the suggestion of the member for Nelson about the Public Accounts Committee has merit and is worthy of consideration. The risks the member for Port Darwin raised can be managed. I thought he went a little Chicken Little in his response to the member for Nelson.
As an example, I do not agree with him that if the Chamber of Commerce appeared before the Public Accounts Committee to talk about why they think TIO is valuable it would decrease the value of TIO. If the Chamber of Commerce, as it has said, is opposed to the sale of TIO and thinks it is a valuable product that provides a valuable service in the marketplace in the Northern Territory, and went before a Public Accounts Committee to explain why they think TIO is valuable, I cannot see how that affects the market price of TIO, which was the member for Port Darwin’s concern. Other risks can be managed.
This sale of TIO was not that long ago. The member for Nelson gave us a history lesson on that. The Territory public has been very clear that they value their public institutions and very much hold the position that a public asset is owned by the public. That is not a controversial position, it is a position that has been made clear in other jurisdictions in reaction to sales.
We are, as has been said a few times, the last jurisdiction to come to this. That provides you the opportunity to learn lessons from where it happened elsewhere. One of those lessons is clear: the public believes they have the right to say what happens to their public assets. The member for Port Darwin went to great lengths to explain why that was a bad idea. We do not agree it is a bad idea. We think you should test this, explain this and take it to the public. You were not elected to sell TIO – in fact, quite the opposite. I quote the very clear position of the CLP before the last election, as articulated by the person who was elected to be Chief Minister in this term of office:
- The CLP stands firmly opposed to the sale of TIO and will fight to see it retained.
That is what Territorians voted for at the last election when they voted for the CLP. They believed that was the position of the CLP. Now we have a new Chief Minister, not one voted in at the last election, who has changed the position. They went to the ballot box in 2012 with very clear position. I quote again:
- The CLP stands firmly opposed to the sale of TIO and will fight to see it retained.
That is crystal clear and unambiguous and is what Territorians voted for. You have to accept that in opposition. That was the position the CLP took forward. That is part of the platform that saw them elected in 2012. Now, in 2014, with a different Chief Minister, we see a change in tack from the CLP.
What does selling TIO mean? What will be the impact? What did the CLP believe the impact of selling TIO would be? The former Chief Minister, the one who was elected by Territorians said, ‘They should not sell TIO, they should be able to manage their affairs and to make these commitment. A proper government should not sell the farm.’
According to the CLP, selling the TIO is selling the farm. Once it is gone, it is gone. We have significant concerns that the loss of TIO will lead to changes to the insurance market. We have heard concerns expressed very clearly elsewhere that the loss of the Territory Insurance Office will lead to unaffordable insurance premiums.
TIO being in our market guarantees we have a good market with competitive prices, with good terms and conditions. It is not all about the price; we have to be aware it is also about the terms and conditions. We know this because it is a lesson from other jurisdictions that have gone before us. This can be explored through a Public Accounts Committee: what has been the impact post-sale? What can you look forward to? In other jurisdictions we have seen prices go up.
This year a federal parliamentary inquiry looked at this and I quote from its recommendation:
- The Committee recommends that the Australian Government take measures to reduce insurance premiums back to an affordable level, which could include increasing competition in the insurance market in Northern Australia. The Australian Government has particular responsibility for the Indian Ocean Territories, but should also conduct negotiations with the governments of the Northern Territory, Western Australia and Queensland, with a view to allowing the Territory Insurance Office to extend its coverage across Northern Australia including the Torres Strait Islands.
That is the recommendation from the federal government. There is an opportunity here for the Chief Minister. He talked about spreading and managing risk, and diversifying the limitations of the TIO. It would take hard work and negotiation and it might not come off, but there is something that can be explored with the federal government and other jurisdictions’ governments regarding the Territory Insurance Office. Its value has been recognised by others, but its value does not appear to be recognised by the CLP.
Rather than advancing quickly down this path as the government is – going to final offers according to the Chief Minister last night – there is another opportunity to be explored. If you do not want to do the work, ask the Public Accounts Committee to do it.
What opportunities are being expressed quite clearly where other markets are not providing affordable premiums as TIO does? Let us explore that and do that work. Let us not fail Territorians by failing to do that work. We do not want to see Territorians lumbered with unaffordable insurance premiums because TIO is sold. We have seen the impacts of other insurance agencies being sold in other states leading to unaffordable premiums.
The recommendation was made because of the huge insurance costs our fellow Australians pay in other parts of Australia. I go back to the report:
- The cost and availability of insurance is a significant impediment to development in Northern Australia. The Committee notes the extraordinary disparity in insurance costs between the north and south of Australia, and between the Northern Territory and the northern portions of Queensland and Western Australia, and the parlous state of insurance on Christmas Island, the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and the Torres Strait Islands. The risk factors applying in the north – chiefly cyclones – do not fully explain this disparity. The Committee welcomes the initiatives by the Australian Government to encourage competition in the provision of insurance in North Queensland, and the current initiatives by some insurers to ease the burden on strata title holders. The Committee believes that more needs to be done. The Territory Insurance Office (TIO) in the Northern Territory is a government owned statutory insurance provider that has provided affordable insurance to citizens of the Territory since 1979. It provides a potential model for the creation of an insurance office covering Northern Australia.
However, the government wants to consider selling a model which will be lost if TIO is sold. The Chief Minister last night was talking about moving to final offers and a quick sale. This conversation started after the Chief Minister admitted they started this conversation in Cabinet in March, after the Casuarina by-election and in the lead-up to Christmas. Oddly enough, the CLP has a policy of discussing the sale of TIO in the lead-up to Christmas.
The elected Chief Minister who is now no longer in the role said, ‘Now there are 250 employees, most of them families of the Top End and particularly in Katherine, who know how important TIO is. It appears, under the cover of the Christmas period, when we are all going to our Christmas drinks, going to Casuarina and buying plastic hammers and things like, he is already at work preparing to sell our TIO. I reckon there is something he needs to understand: this is something that belongs to all Territorians. He needs to come out and explain to us why on earth would you want to sell TIO.’
That was the former member for Blain, the CLP Chief Minister who was elected to lead the CLP in this term of office saying not to have this conversation in the lead-up to Christmas. The CLP is doing just that. ‘Let us talk about selling TIO in the lead-up to Christmas.’ That quote from the elected Chief Minister of the Northern Territory on the government’s position going into the last election was quite clear not sell it and that they would fight to retain it. Obviously we have lost that Chief Minister; he is not here anymore.
There is a trust deficit with this government. It has broken faith with the people of the Northern Territory. It has broken promise after broken promise and is now walking away from another clear part of the CLP platform. I again quote the elected Chief Minister:
- The CLP stands firmly opposed to the sale of TIO and will fight to see it retained.
The people of the Northern Territory can be understandably confused at the change of position from the CLP. They might not be used to surprises anymore; they have seen the CLP break so many promises. We all thought we knew, going into the last election, what the position of the CLP was when it came to TIO. There is a trust deficit with the CLP and this government: when they say one thing and do another.
Rapid Creek flood mitigation is an example the Chief Minister has used regularly in this debate. ‘Sell TIO and you might get flood mitigation in Rapid Creek.’ Rapid Creek flood mitigation was an election promise at the last Territory election. Now it has been reduced to, ‘If we sell TIO you might get it’.
People wonder why there is a trust deficit with this government. It is something you should be doing. Every year you come into this House with a budget. It is part of the ordinary practice of government. You decide how you allocate that budget and the priorities in that budget. One of your priorities should be your election promises. One of those election promises was flood mitigation in Rapid Creek. Now you are saying, ‘If we sell TIO you may get that’.
One of the other things the Chief Minister spoke about – and the member for Port Darwin also touched upon – was risk about reinsurance, so it has been covered.
What does TIO say about risk and reinsurance? I quote from its Statement of Corporate Intent:
- One of the most significant risks which TIO manages is the risk of catastrophic weather events, especially cyclone in the Darwin urban area. TIO remains a unique business with significant concentration of risk within a small geographic area, and the historic outlying event …
The experience of the occurrence of a one-in-600-year event of Cyclone Tracy in 1974:
TIO manages this risk through the appropriate purchase of reinsurance protection.
APRA’s prudential standards require Australian general insurers to purchase reinsurance protection to provide for the likelihood of a 1:250 year event ...
TIO provides for the likelihood of a one-in-250-year event in determining its reinsurance program design. So it takes a conservative approach to risk management.
It is not the scary thing the member for Port Darwin talks up. It is a risk. It is in there; they are very clear about it. We and the CLP know about it, but the CLP is talking it up. It is in TIO’s report that it takes a very conservative approach to reinsuring its risk in the Territory.
What does the Chairman of the TIO Board say about the future strengths of TIO? We have heard the Chief Minister reference TIO. At one stage he said they were recommending its sale, but has recanted that.
What does the Chairman of TIO say about the sale, about the future of viability of TIO? In the annual report he said:
- This is now the fifth consecutive year that TIO has delivered a profit back to Territorians, giving the Board great confidence that the company can continue to provide services that our community needs for many years to come.
The chairman of the board, in the annual report, stated quite clearly he believes TIO is in a position to provide for Territorians for years to come. There is nothing – no sentiment, no alarms bells -about the solvency of TIO and its ability to deliver to the marketplace. We saw how it manages risk in the Statement of Corporate Intent. It made profits five years in a row. There is nothing from the chairman of the board in his annual report that says ‘Careful, we might need to sell’.
We have seen how it manages risk. We have seen the confidence the chairman has in the product. We heard from the Chamber of Commerce which said, ‘Do not sell TIO, this would be a backward step’. We heard from the federal inquiry that selling TIO could be an impediment to the development of the north and that the provision of affordable insurance premiums in the Territory, which is dependent on TIO, helps develop this place.
We heard from a number of people the value of keeping TIO. These things need to be considered prior to any decision for sale. We are very concerned that the CLP, through the words of the Chief Minister, is advancing to final offers and looking to possibly make a quick sale.
TIO provides a competitive effect in the Territory. It provides a dampening effect on insurance cost. It makes for an affordable product. It helps us develop the north. This is a model that has been discussed in other jurisdictions.
We have an opportunity through TIO, not a risk. It is about how you look at the product and the work you are prepared to do. That is why we think you can task the Public Accounts Committee to do work.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we support the TIO. We believe the CLP needs to demonstrate what it is saying; they should take it to an election and back yourselves. Take your change of policy and your new Chief Minister to an election.
Mr STYLES (Transport): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will speak against the amendment and in support of the Chief Minister’s motion.
I agree with the member for Fannie Bay’s last comment – the one thing I agree with – that they support TIO. We also firmly support TIO …
Mr Elferink: What does that mean exactly?
Mr STYLES: That is right. He said it, and now I have said it from our side. I will expand on that definition.
The amended motion said that all words after ‘acknowledges’ should be omitted, etcetera. It also said TIO belongs to the people of the Northern Territory. In fact, member for Nelson, it does. Our responsibility, as a government, is to the people of the Northern Territory. To quote my colleague, the member for Port Darwin, we are here for the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory. It is in their interest that we make these considerations. When I elaborate on a number of things, it should become clear.
I will talk about a couple of things in relation to what various members said. The member for Fannie Bay made a statement in relation to TIO and the report that was done. He said people are envious of us and our position. TIO belongs to the people of the Northern Territory, and so does the debt we inherited from the previous government. On this graph you can see the rising debt. This belongs to the people of the Northern Territory. In fact, this not only belongs to the people of the Northern Territory, it also belongs to my children …
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Props.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not think they have been used.
Mr Elferink: That has been ruled in order. The Speaker takes exception to corflute-type props.
Mr Vowles: Get that thing out.
Mr WOOD: Mr Deputy Speaker, I did not know the type of material it was made of was important ...
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Johnston, I will give instructions in this House, not you.
Mr WOOD: I was saying the type of material the prop was made of was relevant to the argument.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It has been made quite clear that props should not be used. If you are using a prop, could you please refrain, member for Sanderson. If you are reading from notes, that is quite acceptable, thank you.
Mr STYLES: I have used graphs as part of my explanations in the past. It is not some political stunt; these are factual graphs issued in relation to the non-financial public sector net debt to explain to those watching.
I note the member for Wanguri said we own TIO. We do, but if we have a major disaster such as a cyclone in Darwin – look at the bill from Cyclone Tracy, do the mathematics and calculate – the government could be up for a $30bn bill. It would probably be for more than that, but let us say $30bn. There are approximately 100 000 taxpayers – it is not quite that many, but we will say that for round figures – in the Northern Territory. If we have a bill and TIO has to pay out, then my children and my grandchildren, when they become taxpayers, will owe about $300 000 each. TIO is guaranteed by the government and the government represents, as you pointed out, the people of the Northern Territory. If we allow this exposure to go, your daughter and grandchildren will owe a truck load of money.
I explained what $1bn was in this House yesterday; it is a really big number. I am stunned at the lack of business acumen on that side of the Chamber. In fact, I find it amazing, but I am not stunned, because they left us with the massive $5.5bn debt. They thought that was okay – good fiscal management. They thought a 98% debt to income ratio was fantastic. I do not know whether business or anyone else in Australia agrees with you, but I understand you think it is a good number. That is fine.
The member for Fannie Bay said, ‘Do not talk about this before Christmas’. This is not some thought bubble we had last weekend over dinner, member for Fannie Bay; this has been ongoing since March. It is astounding that when you guys wanted to sell TIO in 2006, the board did not agree with you. You said, ‘We want to sell TIO’. The board said, ‘No, it is not the right time’, but you still wanted to go sell it. Now the board has come to us and said, ‘Now is the right time to sell it and we are advising you to sell it’, you change your mind. How do you work that? The board said do not sell it, but you wanted to sell it. Now the board says it is okay – the whole ball game has changed with the shifting of global capital and the way it moves, the reinsurance opportunities and the competition coming in relation to reinsurance – and you say, ‘Oh, no, you cannot sell it’.
Let us look at your previous government. On this subject about selling TIO, I stood in the 2005 elections as a candidate. I do not recall the Labor Party going to the 2005 election saying, ‘We are going to sell TIO’. Where was your mandate in 2006 to go to the public, against the board and the people at that stage, and say, ‘We want to sell TIO’? How do you walk into this House and now say, ‘You do not have a mandate’? How hypocritical is that! I find that amazing. I am stunned and amazed at how you can now have a totally different view, which is again opposed to the board.
Let me look at a few facts. Government asset sales are not new. Selling government assets started in 1991, including by Labor’s Paul Keating. Labor’s Paul Keating sold the Commonwealth Bank and Qantas. All other states and territories, including Labor states, did it as well.
You guys get your policy out of Canberra; it is national policy. You have a sub-branch of the ALP here, but you get your directions from Canberra. I do not know how you cannot understand the rest of your colleagues around the country, because they get the same policy from the same party you do.
They started in Australia in earnest with the sale of the first tranche of the Commonwealth Bank in 1991, an enterprise already operating in a commercial environment. Funny about that, same as TIO, operating in a commercial environment. One factor supporting its sale was the newly-introduced capital adequacy guideline for the banking industry, because things change.
I heard the Leader of the Opposition last night say you cannot unscramble an egg. When you do that, you start with an egg. It is a round thing, you open it up, and you cook it. Once you scramble it, you cannot go back. That is true. TIO was born out of a necessity. We had this egg that was born – here it is, we have an egg ...
Mr Wood: Laid.
Mr STYLES: Laid, thank you for the correction. We have this egg that was laid, and we are going to scramble it. Things move on, and as time goes by, the egg cooks and we end up with a scrambled egg. But everything changes, nothing stays the same, as my colleague, the member for Araluen, so eloquently put it in her presentation in this debate.
Let us go on with a few more of these facts. In TIO’s case, we have a solid business based on strong prudential standards capable of moving forward under the APRA standards.
Proceeds of Commonwealth asset sales since 1990 amount to about $30bn. The Reserve Bank estimates that the sale of companies owned by state governments in Australia is of a similar magnitude at $31bn. The progressive sale of the Commonwealth Bank, with proceeds in three tranches totalling $8.1bn, was the largest financial sector privatisation. Three state banks have been sold and six states have privatised insurance companies.
Asset sales in the transport and communication sector have been dominated by transport-related sales with the part privatisation of Qantas in 1992-93, and the remainder of Qantas in 1995-96. This was followed by the sale of airports in Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth.
Let us look at railways. The business units of Australian National, except the interstate track, were privatised in mid-1997. In 1995-96 and 1996-97, privatisation was dominated by sales of the Victorian Electricity Generators and Distributors. Fancy that, competition into electricity generation.
Let me turn to the current federal government asset recycling program, a terrific scheme. The opposition said we go to Canberra and cannot get any money. I do not know how well you did when you went to Canberra, but then they did not have the $667bn debt we have now. Yes, it is tough, so you have to think outside the square. That is what business people do when faced with challenges. They do not borrow more money, they rise to the challenge and come up with solutions to the problems they face, otherwise they are out of business. If the Labor government was still in control in Canberra we would probably be out of business because the debt would be well over one trillion dollars. That is what you people do; you are very good at borrowing money but not very good at generating wealth.
Let us look at the asset recycling scheme. The state and federal governments all realise the economy is in a transitional phase. In other states they are transitioning out of the mining and manufacturing sectors. The federal government asset recycling program is designed to encourage states and territories to sell their assets and re-use that money for more infrastructure building assets. The Chief Minister has made that clear. The Giles government has been working on this problem and in the May budget put in place the first building blocks to overcome the boom-and-bust cycle, while at the same time paying off Labor’s debt.
The federal government’s nation-building program will equal eight new Snowy Mountain schemes built in Australia in the next six years through the government asset recycling. What a fantastic scheme to stimulate an economy almost crippled by the massive debt inherited from the Labor government.
The Labor states of South Australia and the ACT have also signed up to this process, with South Australia already announcing the sale of its motor accidents compensation. I heard members on the other side talk about this. I do not know what part of ‘no’ they do not understand. ‘No’ is the second simplest word in the English language. It is an ‘N’ and an ‘O’. I wonder what part of the ‘N’ and ‘O’ the opposition members do not understand. It is very simple; MAC is not being sold and that has been made very clear by members.
If they were in charge they would keep TIO and expose it to many of the things already discussed in this House.
I quote from the ‘TIO addresses the Parliamentary Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia’ media release by the TIO Chairman yesterday:
- ‘Increasingly, the insurance market has moved to companies that can spread risk beyond a single state, territory or even country’.
If what we heard from the other side of the House was so fantastic why has the ALP – a central organisation that makes policy – not made a policy to reintroduce government insurance offices? You will note all the dates I quoted are through the 1990s. In the 2000s, every state and territory, bar one, had a Labor government, so they had total control of the country. If government insurance offices were so good and it was so disastrous out there, why did they not reintroduce a policy and go back into the insurance business? I challenge anyone on that side of the House to answer that question: why did you not make that a national policy? Because In 2005 you were thinking about selling TIO against the wishes of the board. I did not see a federal policy from Canberra to say, ‘Government insurance offices are great and we should keep them’. I still do not see that policy.
When the Chief Minister challenges the opposition to create policy, why have we not had a real policy debate on why you want to do this? All we hear is so much emotional talk from that side of the House. On this side of the House we make decisions based on evidence, not emotion. You must have the debate we are having now, but you have to look at evidence versus emotion.
I return to the media release by the Chairman of TIO:
- Mr Carter said TIO’s current challenge is how to gain access and become part of a fully diversified book of risks like the national insurers, with access to global capital markets.
One of the things that changed, even in the last five years, is the movement of global capital around the world. Other national and international companies are able to work together to get the cost of reinsurance down to more manageable levels.
Some of the information I have received is probably commercial-in-confidence so I cannot give you some of the figures. However, I can say the cost of reinsurance for TIO is far higher than some of its competitors. The competitors are getting far better deals on reinsurance.
Returning to the media release, it quotes Mr Bruce Carter, the chairman of the board:
- ‘I am very pleased to see that the Chief Minister is talking about key criteria including protecting the brand, ensuring local product coverage and looking after the people. These are the key elements that make TIO great’ …
In 2006 the previous Labor government was at odds with the board. Things have changed as the world changes. We have to move with change.
I remind those opposite that the board came to us and said, ‘We need to fix a looming problem’. Let us fix it while – to quote the member for Port Darwin – the car is nice and shiny and has no dents in it.
I learned many years ago another car analogy. Volvos are very good cars and you can hang on to them for a long time, but there is an old saying, ‘When the headlight globe goes in a Volvo it is time to sell it, because after all those years everything starts to deteriorate from the front to the back’. That is a fair sign many people have found, because they made the headlight globes really well. When everything starts to wear out and things change – and you cannot change the passage of time – then it is time to go.
I will look at a couple of issues in relation to the Chamber of Commerce. On her ABC show this morning, Julia Christensen’s asked, ‘Does the Chamber support the sale or will you be actively opposing it?’
Mr Greg Bicknell, the CE of the Chamber of Commerce replied, ‘We have just, as you mentioned, stepped out of a meeting where we have been discussing this. We have been conducting a survey of our membership across the Territory and members have come back very strongly opposed to the privatisation so we will certainly be taking these concerns of our members forward to government as they look at this issue.’
The reporter asked, ‘Why are your members opposed to the sale?’
Mr Bicknell said a few things but the pertinent point was, ‘Well, there was actually a large, fairly substantial percentage of the people who were still unsure and do not know enough about exactly what the impacts on their businesses would be’.
Mrs FINOCCHIARO: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I seek an extension of time for the minister.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STYLES: Many other speakers have commented on how this will play out. I do not expect those opposite to understand this, but it is about business and how it works. When you buy a business, you pay hard-earned and hard-fought-for money. A business has a value. TIO has a value.
If somebody buys the various arms of TIO, excluding the MAC Scheme, I do not know of any successful business that would trash the brand. I do not know any business that would buy something and then jack the prices up and change the whole nature of it, because that business operates in a commercial environment. TIO is just like any other, privately-owned company, except the people of the Northern Territory have to guarantee its losses ...
Mr Elferink: Taxpayers are not real people, though.
Mr STYLES: I have just reminded them of that, member for Port Darwin. If we have a massive catastrophic cyclone and the bill, for instance, is $30bn, every taxpayer in the Northern Territory would have to cough up $300 000 to pay for damage because TIO has to pay it. That is not the whole bill; that is just what TIO has to pay out – $30bn, at $300 000 per taxpayer. I do not want my children and grandchildren to inherit a $300 000 bill. They already owe somewhere between $50 000 and $60 000 because of ALP mismanagement in the Territory and federally. When you add up the debts and divide them by the number of people in Australia, it adds up to, I think, more than $30 000. When you add that to the Territory’s debt of, I think, about $26 000 per man, woman and child, you are looking at a huge debt.
The opposition wants to keep Territory taxpayers exposed to that sort of risk. Insurance companies spread their risk, and this is what they do not seem to understand. Insuring and managing risk is the business of insurance companies. Selling is what the company and its boards want to do. However, the people opposite want to keep all of that risk at home. They want to expose Territory taxpayers to those debt levels. Is that looking after the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory? I think not. I am not surprised they do not understand business, given the way they ran the Territory for 11 years and the mess they created.
In the second page of the transcript of the interview with Mr Bicknell the reporter said, ‘So you are worried that if the Territory is lumped in with northern Australia, with north Queensland, we will pay much higher premiums because of the higher risk compared to us?’
Mr Bicknell said, ‘Well, that is one of the potential risks’.
I will not quote the rest of the paragraph. Suffice to say, TIO is required to operate in a commercial environment. It has to get its premiums right. But as the cost of reinsurance goes up, so the premiums will have to go up – something will have to give. If the amount of reinsurance comes down, it further exposes Territory taxpayers and families. I cannot believe, as a responsible person – not even as a politician, but a responsible person – you would want to expose your family, friends and relatives to that debt level in a disaster. This is what TIO wants to do, which is why the chairman is talking about spreading that risk.
By legislation TIO cannot operate interstate. I am wondering if the opposition wants us to go interstate and join with north Queensland. I note the Leader of the Opposition in her speech last night said:
- Warren Entsch’s inquiry made it clear that our TIO is gold standard.
I have so much more I would love to say on this issue; however, time is running out. There are a couple of things I will say about the criticism about community investment of TIO. The Leader of the Opposition said a number of things in relation to programs which will disappear.
These people who buy TIO as a business will have an excellent brand. The CEO, Mr Richard Harding, said that since Labor tried to sell TIO in 2006, a lot of work has been done to get TIO into a better financial situation and on a better commercial footing. The work was not done under Labor. One of the reasons they did not want to sell in 2006 is because it was not in a position to do so. Now it is. As I said about the shift of global capital, it is much easier for competitors to reinsure. That global capital moves very quickly, is able to shift, and it has moved the rates at which they can get reinsurance.
Look at customer and the strategic marketing contracts TIO has. In relation to the opposition’s comments on CareFlight, that is a joint sponsorship between corporate TIO and the MAC Scheme. The cost is $750 000 over three years, is ongoing and expires on 30 June 2016.
TIO is corporate sponsor to TIO Stadium, TIO Traeger Park, Lions Club Children’s Film Festival, Disability Service Awards $3000, Young NT Youth Achievers $40 000, Motor Traders Association Apprentice of the Year Awards $10 000, CDU Scholarships $50 000, TIO Conference – which I went to the other week and it was a terrific show – Business Enterprise Centre $5000, and Northern Territory Emergency Services Vehicle in Alice Springs $1000.
We have told the parliament and the opposition we are not selling the MAC Scheme; we will have somebody to administer it. The Leader of the Opposition was saying the road safety aspect of this will go, all will be terrible, and the sky will fall in.
Other sponsorships are: the Michael Long Centre, $1.5m over 10 years; Northern Territory Football League, $45 000 over three years; the Central Australian Football League – she mentioned that has gone; Darwin Turf Club branding and road safety leveraging, $10 000; St John First Aid at the scene $10 000; NT Hockey Association, and the list goes on.
Any business person would have to be crazy not to continue being a good corporate citizen by maintaining the brand. They will pay for the brand while we have a good brand. If you send it to a committee it will deteriorate. While we have a good brand we need to look at it. The board, being a responsible group of people, supports it. It approached us and we have reacted. It was not something we did yesterday; this happened in March. It now has the information it needs.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the motion to the House.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Mr Deputy Speaker, does the member for Sanderson commend the member for Nelson’s amended motion …
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Had the member been listening he would know what I was addressing.
Mr Vowles: What is your point of order, mate?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we refrain from that type of language in the parliament please?
Mr Styles: Get your facts right.
Mr VOWLES: Well …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I have quiet or you will both be out! Member for Johnston, you have the floor, continue with your speech.
Mr VOWLES: Mr Deputy Speaker, if you ever wanted to see how the constituents of Sanderson and Port Darwin are being short changed by their members, the contribution by those members in the House have shown the tax dollars they are paying have been wasted. They were full of mistruths and weird examples. We had an egg example from the member for Sanderson, the former kindergarten cop, and then on to Volvos – if the lights do not work you must throw the car away. The member for Port Darwin was going on about not devaluing the debate. His contribution devalued the debate enormously. We heard the Chief Minister say many times we need a mature debate around this. That was not very mature at all. I was disgusted listening to comparisons about a car and people sleeping with each other for money. It was bizarre, but that is what we get from the member for Port Darwin every now and then. We know it is the last day of two weeks of sittings and we expect some bizarre comments from you, but discussing the price of somebody sleeping with somebody else – now it is determined they will sleep together, it is all around a price.
We are trying to have a mature debate about the selling of a Territory public asset. We support the amended motion of the member for Nelson. This should go to the Public Accounts Committee for scrutiny, because this is important and we need to get it right. People think you guys are just about to sign on the dotted line and this is just a talkfest; this is already happening.
The debate and your contributions have all been about not devaluing TIO because you have people ready to buy it. They have already put in offers and the Chief Minister said the government will sell it quickly, so this is simply a talkfest.
The day after the Casuarina by-election there was no mention of it on the website. You could not be up front and honest with Territorians as you did not put it on the website after the by-election. The day after the by-election there was a website asking what we should spend the money on. There is nowhere to say no, just where to spend the money.
It is important for us on this side of the House to represent Territorians. We moved a motion last night to give voice to the thousands of Territorians who signed a petition and the many people coming into our offices, pulling us up in the street and in the mall saying, ‘Do not sell this. Stick up for us. Do not sell our public asset. It is our asset which the government of the day manages. It is not for the government of the day to sell.’ Last night we debated a motion the Leader of the Opposition moved not to sell our public assets.
We see what is going on with the government members who think they are so smart and above all of us. You are selling TIO as a cash grab to pay for your unfunded election commitments in the bush and to build a war chest for the 2016 election. The only way you will be on that side of the House is to try to fool Territorians again by splashing money everywhere.
You are holding the people to ransom in Milner along Rapid Creek, saying, ‘Support the sale of TIO or you will not get the flood mitigation works done’. As I said last night, you promised $1.5m. I remember the candidate, Jo Sangster, standing next to Terry Mills, the then Opposition Leader, who was the elected Chief Minister, saying, ‘We will give $1.5m to flood works as a down payment, and we will do more’. There has not been 1c spent on that election commitment and you have the audacity to say, ‘We are going to sell TIO so we can do Rapid Creek for you’.
I believe this deal has already been done. You have somebody ready to go, and by the end of this year, if not by the next sittings, you will announce that.
Member for Port Darwin, I cannot believe the contribution you made. What makes it better is you are like a small child, and big daddy member for Sanderson topped it off – absolutely brilliant! ‘All those Volvo owners, get rid of them; if your lights are on the blink, sell it.’ I hope Volvo is not involved in any of your business dealings because I do not think the company will be very happy with you saying the cars are on the blink and if your lights go, you are cactus.
Then we had the mistruths about TIO, that we did not have a mandate in 2005 to sell TIO as we had not taken it to the election. You need to check your facts. Our recommendation was made. The election was won in 2005. You lost again, that is fine. Congratulations on being elected in 2008, member for Sanderson. Well done after that great campaign you ran with midnight letterbox drops – a very proud start to your political career.
In 2006, my understanding is there was a recommendation that the people’s voices be heard, which the then Leader of the Opposition, Terry Mills, was part of, with the member for Nelson. There was a march, and 12 000 signatures …
Mr Wood: Fifteen thousand.
Mr VOWLES: Thank you, member for Nelson. There were 15 000 signatures on a petition. The difference between the Labor government at the time and your government is the Labor government listened to the people. They took it to the people, listened and did not touch it. To say we did not have a mandate in 2005 and tried to sneak it through in 2006 is simply not correct.
What you have already done is, as Terry Mills said, is sell the farm. You are going to get rid of it.
The Volvo has done my head in, I tell you. Thank God that prop you used has been ruled out of order. You cannot use any props anymore about your budget. In the last four speeches you made, it has taken you less than four minutes to bring that graph out. That is why I had to say something. I thought, ‘The member for Sanderson, Peter Styles, is not a bad bloke, but I reckon he will pull that graph out within four minutes’. Yesterday it was three minutes and thirty five seconds; I am timing you now. It is getting ridiculous. I did not think you would do it today. I went outside to get a drink of water, I came back in, and what was he holding up? That bloody budget graph again. He has been in government over two years, and it has taken him two years …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I am seeking clarification as to whether this is the leadership speech by the member for Johnston, while the member for Fannie Bay is not in the room.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is not a point of order, Chief Minister. Member for Johnston, as I said, I will issue the orders here, not you.
Mr VOWLES: I apologise for that, mate. It was pretty cheeky, that is what I was saying. The Chief Minister has come into the Chamber to put his authority on everybody. He has tried to butt in on my speech …
Mr Giles: Your leadership speech!
Mr VOWLES: We are 100% behind our leader, the member for Karama. The member for Karama will lead us into the 2016 election, and you will be running scared, mate ...
Mr GILES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I am just wondering if this is the kiss of death, when the member for Johnston …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we desist with all of this childish behaviour, please? That goes to both sides of parliament.
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I was going to remind you of Standing Order 51 and the fact we have had three frivolous interjections in a row from the Chief Minister. The Chair has been quite harsh on the opposition members today, and I ask you to be even-handed to members opposite for their behaviour.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr VOWLES: I repeat for the public record that the NT Labor Caucus is 100% behind the member for Karama leading us into the 2016 election. We will continue to hold this bad government to account on everything.
TIO is a public asset we need and must keep. We do not have many public assets, so we need to ensure we look after them.
As the local member for Johnston I am involved with flood mitigation and the issues of Rapid Creek and Millner residents. As I said last night, it is important we do this properly. You should not hold the people of Millner to ransom, ‘Support TIO’s sale or the work will not be done’. Because it is so important, we moved a motion last night. I welcome the opportunity to again talk on TIO. I thank the Chief Minister for bring this motion to the House, because it gives us another opportunity to remind this government to be responsible and not sell TIO.
As I said, I was disgusted with the members for Sanderson’s and Port Darwin’s comments about talking it down as we will not receive as much money. If you have enough money in the bank, anything is for sale. Do not worry that it is not your asset. You only manage the asset; you are not supposed to sell it. You are supposed to care about and look after Territorians.
You promised to lower the cost of living when you came into government in 2012. ‘We will lower the cost of living. Your job is safe.’ That is another furphy. During the 2012 election campaign you stood outside government agencies, handing out ‘Your Job is Safe’ messages. I believe we have a picture of the member for Port Darwin gleefully, with a face like the cat that has swallowed the budgie, holding up ‘Your Job is Safe’ sign. We know that is not true. I personally know that is not true because you sacked my wife. We dealt with that, so we know it is not correct ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I am not entirely sure what he is referring to, but if the member wants to make an accusation of that nature he should do so by way of substantive motion. Beyond that, take that comment outside and I will sue you, because it is not true. You, sir, are a liar!
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, you should withdraw that, and that is not a point of order.
Mr ELFERINK: I withdraw the ‘liar’ part, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr VOWLES: Oh, come on. We know it is true, anyway.
Mr Elferink: It is not true and you can take it outside and you will hear from my lawyer.
Mr VOWLES: You can threaten me all you want, member for Port Darwin, and point your finger, but the truth is the truth.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we please have a bit of order in here and get back to the debate, rather than personal slanging matches.
Mr VOWLES: As I said, in 2012, you said, ‘Your job is safe. We will lower the cost of living.’
You know what was not in the election material? Do you know, member for Fong Lim? Member for Blain, you are the new bloke, do you know what was not in the 2012 election commitments?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Johnston, we are not in committee stage on debate where we ask questions. If you could just …
Mr VOWLES: I am getting to it. What was not in the 2012 election campaign was, ‘We are going to sell off public assets’. I did not hear anybody saying, ‘We will sell TIO’. You did not have a mandate, and this is the problem we keep going on about. If you are going to sell public assets – the assets Territorians own that you are supposed to manage on behalf of Territorians – take it to the 2016 election and let the people decide. If they decide they want a CLP government for another term, then you have a mandate. But take it to the election and say, ‘If you want to elect us in 2016 to manage your funds and govern for you, we will govern for all Territorians, but will tell you now we will sell TIO and we could sell other assets’. Take that to the election. Stop trying to hide things and get a cash grab so you can fund your unfunded election commitments and build up a war chest.
We are trying to have a mature discussion about public assets. We had that last night when we brought the motion to the House. We tried to have one today, but the contributions from the members for Port Darwin and Sanderson were on how we are devaluing TIO. We are supposed to stand up for Territorians. You say by us standing up for Territorians about not selling TIO we are devaluing the product you are trying to sell; that after we beat up the new car with a jackhammer, it will not be worth anything when you try to sell it.
As I said, you have already made the decision you are selling it; it is already done. I truly believe it is a done deal. It is just a matter of when you announce it. It will either be by the end of the year or before the next sittings in late November.
You have no mandate to do this. It is interesting for me. I was elected in 2012. I remember when coming into this parliament, the first person I shook hands with was the then elected Chief Minister, Terry Mills. What takes me back now is how they campaigned against the member for Nelson. They brought Territorians along with them to say to Labor at the time, ‘We do not want our public asset sold’.
The Terry Mills story – the former member for Blain, the former elected Chief Minister – has been told the book has closed and he is in Jakarta somewhere. We are not entirely sure how much he is paid, or what he is doing there, because we have not had a report or heard something in parliament about what he is achieving, or if he is achieving anything there. It takes you back to how this government is running things.
It rams legislation through parliament just because it has the numbers. As I said many times in this parliament, because you have the numbers and you can do it does not mean you should. You are supposed to represent all Territorians and the best interests of Territorians, not the best interests of you and individual situations. It is, ‘Let us just look after us! What can we get out of this deal? How can we do this?’
Now after two years, halfway through this term of government, everybody is starting to focus on the 2016 campaign. I hope, member for Sanderson, you are doing a lot of work in your electorate, because you will struggle to maintain your 3% margin, I think it was, to be re-elected. I hope you are doing well. If you sell TIO you will know. I am sure people are coming to your office, and the offices of everybody else on that side, saying, ‘Do not sell it. Why do we have to sell it? Why are you selling it? This is our public asset.’
You want a mature discussion, well how about a mature government? Get down to governing for Territorians, not governing for yourselves …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request an extension of 10 minutes for my colleague.
Motion agreed to.
Mr VOWLES: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, and member for Nhulunbuy.
Let us have a mature discussion about the sale of the TIO asset, which is a shame. I and Territorians hope you can be a mature government. You are not being one. You are looking after yourselves and making decisions that do not make sense. People are bombarding our offices. The new member for Casuarina is already finding people are coming to her, contacting her on Facebook, e-mails, any way they can, and asking what this government is doing.
We have thousands of people leaving the Territory because you guys promised to lower the cost of living and it is through the roof. How are we supposed to survive? Let us be honest, we in this Chamber are on very good wages and the ministers in Cabinet are on exceptional wages. But you cringe like I cringe every time that power bill comes in, and now the water bill is through the roof. Families will struggle over the Christmas and new year periods. Those families – the mums and dads with school-aged children – after the January holidays have to buy books and shoes, because the kids have grown, and get everything needed to be ready for school. It will be a struggle.
If you sell TIO our insurance premiums will go through the roof and that will further impact on the cost-of-living pressures for our mums and dads in the Northern Territory.
Mr Deputy Speaker, let us call it what it is: this is a cash grab for your election commitments and your war chest of money you can splash around and pay off the communities with the promises you made that are not on any books we know of. They contracts Terry Mills signed with communities are in my drawer. I have kept them and might frame them to show what a joke they were. I feel sorry for people in remote regions of the Northern Territory, and Territorians who were conned and scammed and are continually let down by this bad government.
Mr BARRETT (Blain): Mr Deputy Speaker, that would have been a very entertaining speech had it not been on such a serious topic. I have listened carefully to many things said in this House on this issue and it seems three things are happening in regard to the debate coming from across …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can you take that discussion outside please, member for Johnston.
Mr Elferink: I am trying to, Mr Deputy Speaker but he will not move. He is too much of a coward.
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker!
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That was a bit uncalled for, Leader of Government Business. That should be withdrawn.
Mr Vowles: Did you just offer to go outside?
Mr Elferink: No, I said go out the back and we will talk about the issue you have like gentlemen. That is what I have been trying to do, but you are refusing to. I cannot help it if you live in this world of paranoia …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: These discussions …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! This is not a point of order.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I have silence please. These discussions definitely need to be taken outside. They should not take place here during debate about TIO. The member for Blain has the floor and he can continue.
Mr BARRETT: Mr Deputy Speaker, the first argument they opposition came up with was about market failure, the second was about the effect on people and the third was about the notion of a cash grab. I will frame the arguments so I can box them in place where they need to be; they are mostly irrelevant.
I address first the notion of market failure. A market failure in economic terms has a specific definition. You cannot talk about a market failure every time something is more expensive than you think it should be. Where a market exists and where that market is operating in an efficient manner, no market failure exists.
A market failure may exist in the notion of a Defence Force. We are, as the member for Johnston pointed out, not on bad wages, but I do not know if there is anybody in this Chamber who could afford to buy an F/A-18 Hornet or a tank. We are unable to do that at an individual level. We collectively understand this is a product we need. Because we need this product, we combine together and create a system where we are taxed to pay for it.
It is the opinion of this government that often when a market failure does not exist it becomes apparent the government does not have a place being in the market. If we look historically at the way governments have tried to intervene in efficient markets, they invariably do a bad job of it.
If we look at a market failure, we are looking at a circumstance where there are many players in this market, which was not the case when this was set up. Those organisations act in a very efficient manner and offer a complete and comprehensive level of service to the community in all levels of insurance available, whether that be life insurance or anything else.
The reasoning, ‘You cannot do this because someone’s premiums will or will not go up’ is not a valid argument in light of the fact there is an market operating that will efficiently price risk according to actuarial data.
The second issue they raised is the effect this will have on people. The elephant in the room the opposition and the member for Nelson are failing to pick up on is that you do not spend a lot of money buying a brand to then ruin it.
When I worked in the finance industry, the finance company I worked for bought another finance company. When we bought that finance company, we worked very hard with that client base because we had bought a book. We worked incredibly hard with that client base to make sure they were getting not just the level of service they were used to, but a level of service that meant they would not just stay but we would be able to build through that network, that book of clients, a larger and greater client base. The synergies that existed between the two firms could now consolidate a profit where the two firms would be greater as one entity.
Much of the information regarding the effect on people is not grounded on anything factual. It is, for lack of a better word, scaremongering. They are assuming some things will happen and are being very noisy about their assumptions, but those assumptions may or may not happen.
The third thing is this notion of a cash grab. I echo what the member for Katherine spoke about in relation to this. It is very important for the opposition to understand this. We on this side of the Chamber understand this is a sensitive issue. We understand many people in our electorates, as yours, will be concerned about this, ‘Where is this going? What will happen?’ Believe me when I say to you, I, like the member for Katherine, would not be supporting this or a mature discussion on this, if we wanted to randomly grab cash.
If you want to look at a cash grab, let us look at the cash grab while Labor was in government when they took debt to state product up to 98%, an amount that would make Spain blush in the middle of the global financial crisis. Had it not been for the fact the federal government is backing us with a AAA rating, as an economy we would be in a lot of trouble right now. It is somewhat hypocritical for members opposite to talk about us performing a cash grab when they went for every ounce of what they could drag out of the Northern Territory’s cash flow in debt. They clocked that onto our liabilities register, which this government is having to work through. I am happy to say it is doing a good job on that.
On other issues, first of all, some information came to light today about the fund that existed in the federal government between 2003 and 2009. Individual states could apply for money for mitigation. Not one application was made to mitigate floods in Katherine or Rapid Creek. The member for Johnston talked about the good people of Millner needing something done. At what point did the Labor government, when they had a federal bucket of money to deal with this, do anything about it? There was not a point. They put very few applications in and the applications that went in only went to fire damage control. There was nothing covering floods. Looking at all of this on a holistic level, the information coming across the floor is somewhat shallow.
The challenges facing TIO and the Northern Territory community are centred around floods, storm surge and damage most likely associated with cyclones. TIO policyholders are underwritten by taxpayers of the Northern Territory, that is, the Northern Territory government and, therefore, taxpayers. We as a group, the NT and taxpayers, will pay any shortfall in funds to policyholders if there is a major disaster.
Because of this, the Northern Territory government is particularly interested in a draft report by the Australian government’s Productivity Commission into natural disaster funding which was released in September this year. This is a very complex issue, but one that is important for the opposition to understand. The scope of the Productivity Commission inquiry included:
1. the sustainability and effectiveness of current arrangements for funding natural disaster mitigation, resilience and recovery initiatives, including – where directly relevant to an improved funding model – the management of disaster relief and recovery;
The Productivity Commission’s key points in its draft findings say:
- Australia is exposed to natural disasters on a recurring basis. Effective planning and mitigation of risks is an essential task for governments, businesses and households.
Current government natural disaster funding arrangements are not efficient, equitable or sustainable. They are prone to cost shifting, ad hoc responses and short-term political opportunism ...
There are anecdotes that abound that talk of the inefficiencies in the way funds have been spent under these circumstances:
The evolution of the funding arrangements can be characterised by growing generosity of the Australian Government during the previous decade, followed by a swing to constrain costs and increase oversight after the recent concentrated spate of costly disasters.
Governments generally overinvest in post-disaster reconstruction, and underinvest in mitigation that would limit the impact of natural disasters in the first place. As such, natural disaster costs have become a growing, unfunded liability for governments, especially the Australian Government.
Australian Government post-disaster support to state governments needs to be reduced, and support for mitigation increased ...
…
Governments have a role in providing emergency relief payments to individuals who have been seriously affected by natural disasters, to avoid immediate economic and social hardship. Reducing duplication, inconsistency, inequity and inefficiency in the provision of such relief is needed.
…
- - Regulations affecting the built environment have a significant influence on the exposure and vulnerability of communities to natural hazards. While building regulations have generally been effective, there is evidence that land use planning is not always incorporating natural disaster risk. Greater transparency is needed.
Lastly from the report:
- Insurance is an important risk management option, especially for private assets. Households and businesses should be relied upon to manage natural disaster risks to their assets. Insurance markets in Australia for natural disaster risk are generally working well. Pricing is increasingly risk reflective, even to the individual property level.
As you can see, the Productivity Commission is looking at changing the management of natural disaster risk for the whole of Australia.
The opposition likes to quote Terry Mills and talk about things that happened more than six years ago. But the reality is that things have moved on. The way the federal government is looking at funding natural disasters in this country has changed. Natural disasters are an inherent part of the Australian landscape:
- Since 2009, natural disasters have claimed more than 200 lives, destroyed 2670 houses and damaged a further 7680 …
This has affected the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of Australians.
These natural disasters have also had significant financial impact on Australian state, territory and local governments. Over the past decade, the Australian government has spent $8bn on post-disaster relief and recovery, with another $5.7bn to be spent over the forward estimates for past natural disaster events. State and territory governments have spent a further $5.6bn on relief and recovery over the past decade. The Productivity Commission data shows that since 1970 the cost of cyclones and floods in the Northern Territory has totalled $1.66bn.
- However, the costs of natural disasters go beyond insured losses. Disasters impose a range of economic, social and environmental costs on governments, businesses, households and communities. These include:
direct market costs caused by the physical event, such as damage to private property and public infrastructure
indirect market costs, such as disruptions to economic activity
non-market costs, such as deaths and injuries as well as impacts on social wellbeing and the natural environment.
The economic costs of natural disasters are difficult to measure. A recent estimate by Deloitte Access Economics puts the total economic cost of natural disasters at $6.3bn a year.
- The Australian government spent over $8bn on post-disaster activities between 2002-03 and 2012-13. Most of this was through the Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements, the NDRRA … with a further $1.3bn through the Australian Government Disaster Relief Payments, the AGDRP. Over the same period, there was at least another $5.6bn of NDRRA eligible expenditure by state (and … local) governments ...
- The NDRRA are the primary mechanism through which the Australian Government shares the cost of natural disasters with the states. These arrangements are intended to act as a safety net against large fiscal impacts from natural disasters. The Australian Government reimburses state governments for a proportion of their eligible expenditure on relief and recovery, including expenditure by the local governments. NDRRA expenditure largely consists of restoring essential public assets (particularly roads) and providing assistance to individuals and businesses. Funding flows to local governments through state-based relief and recovery arrangements.
It is very important to understand a bit about the NDRRA. There are some thresholds:
- … the Australian Government only provides assistance if cumulative state expenditure (on events meeting the small disaster criterion of $240 000) exceeds a certain threshold in a financial year
reimbursement rates – the level of reimbursement (up to 75%) depends on the level of state expenditure and the type of activity
eligible expenditure – reimbursement is only available for defined activities, falling under three categories …
- … state governments, including the Northern Territory must meet several requirements in order to be eligible for NDRRA funding including:
having adequate access to capital to fund infrastructure losses
submitting independent assessments of their insurance arrangements to the Australian government and responding appropriately to recommended changes
developing and implementing disaster mitigation strategies and encouraging their local governments to do likewise.
- There are four categories of relief and recovery assistance:
Category A – emergency assistance to individuals.
Category B – restoration of essential public assets; financial assistance to small businesses, primary producers, voluntary nonprofit bodies and individuals; and ‘counter disaster operations’ for public health and safety.
Category C – community recovery packages and recovery grants to small businesses and primary producers.
Category D – acts of relief or recovery carried out in circumstances deemed to be exceptional.
The Northern Territory government is continuing work with the federal government on these important matters. If I explain this with an example people might see how important this is. Because the Northern Territory government is a co-insurer with TIO, we are in a circumstance where if there was, say, $1bn of loss, as co-insurer to the value of half of the value of the private insurance policies, the Northern Territory government is up for $500m just to cover private insurance policies.
That $500m going into private policies does not trigger any of these amounts from the NDRRA that could come to the state for disaster relief. Effectively, the Northern Territory government, due to the fact it is hanging on to the reinsurance part of the TIO, is in the can, effectively, for half of whatever needs to be paid for, plus whatever reconstruction needs to occur on our own assets because we self-insure. In addition, we are also in a situation where we have to go past these trigger points …
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker? Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I seek an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Mr BARRETT: We are up for an awful lot of money that needs to go to reconstruction should a major disaster event occur.
The federal government may not assist at a level we might expect due to our exposure in TIO. I go again to these requirements, because everyone was asleep:
- having adequate access to capital to fund infrastructure losses
It is a requirement we have access to capital to provide our own disaster relief outside of the funds that need to go, as our co-insurance option, to the Territory Insurance Office.
- submitting independent assessments of their insurance arrangements to the Australian government and responding appropriately to recommended changes
With our insurance arrangements we are, effectively, insuring ourselves, which means half the value of whatever policies we need to pay out is money we cannot spend in insurance for Northern Territory government assets.
- developing and implementing disaster mitigation strategies and encouraging their local governments to do likewise.
Because we are having to put funds into this, at what point are we looking at mitigation strategies? It has already been demonstrated that even when a federal funding pool existed for the Northern Territory to apply for and obtain mitigation funding, the previous Labor government of the Northern Territory failed to do so.
Talking about the price of insurance, whose fault is it if insurance is high in the Rapid Creek and Katherine areas, given that no attempt was made for mitigation? This is a shame. It is something the opposition need to think very carefully about before they start throwing slurs across the Chamber at us.
In light of all this, I close by saying there were some very valid reasons why the TIO was set up in the first place. There are some very valid reasons why now is a good time to release TIO, not least of which is it will help in working with this NDRRA initiative through the federal government and putting us in a situation where we are not at so much risk due to the risk we are carrying through TIO, rendering us unable to respond effectively in a time of crisis in the Northern Territory.
I recommend that the members opposite in the House consider such things carefully and not be quite so shallow in their assessments of us by putting arguments that this market is in a failure position. I refute that strongly. This market is not in a market failure position. Their argument is quite shallow and will affect people.
The rebuttal to their other argument is, if a company acquires the Territory Insurance Office, why would they wreck it? Why would they destroy the client base they have just purchased?
Mr Deputy Speaker, their third one-dimensional shallow argument is this a cash grab. Do you really think we would put ourselves at such political risk? We are doing this for good reasons and those reasons need to be considered by members on the other side of the Chamber.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim ): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for bringing on this motion. Selling TIO is something that has been close to my heart for some time. It is necessary. It is ludicrous that the Northern Territory has so much money tied up in one asset when we should be using that money to provide infrastructure and other things to drive the Territory forward, particularly when there is an enormous number of companies which see government competing with them and are very keen to buy that asset from government. I will get back on to TIO in a minute.
It was interesting listening to comments from the other side. Something those members opposite might find of some interest is that two of the greatest political leaders, in my view, this country has ever seen were Bob Hawke and Paul Keating. What they did in government was stunning at a national level, and they were very reformist in the way they changed Australia forever.
Hawke and Keating floated the Australian dollar, deregulated the banking industry and introduced compulsory superannuation. Those three things were massive for Australia at the time. Floating the dollar was a big thing to do. It meant government took its hands off the levers of monetary control and allowed it to operate as a global currency. Deregulating the banks was allowing foreign banks into Australia. Think back to the times when Hawke and Keating did this. Deregulating the banking industry and allowing foreign banks to come into Australia was a bold move at the time and did not meet with a lot of thanks from many of their Labor colleagues. Compulsory superannuation was another struggle Hawke and Keating involved themselves in, but it did set up Australia’s savings regime. Fortunately for us now, Bob Hawke and Paul Keating were keen to introduce compulsory superannuation. We now we have a savings base in the Australian population that never existed in the past.
Hawke and Keating also privatised the Commonwealth Bank, Qantas and Telstra ...
Mr Elferink: Keating was a much better Liberal than Fraser.
Mr TOLLNER: In many regards. It is no wonder Bob Hawke and Paul Keating are now luminaries of the Labor Party. Not only were they both Prime Ministers of Australia – I do not care which political party you come from, if you reach the dizzy heights of Prime Minister, you deserve some respect simply for getting to that position.
Hawke and Keating obviously were not happy just to get to the position of Prime Minister. Both wanted to leave their mark on Australia and set Australia up as a world market-leading economy.
Once you have deregulated the banking industry, what is the point of owning a bank? Hence, Mr Keating’s desire and ultimate achievement in privatising the Commonwealth Bank. It was similar with Qantas. There is a range of airlines in Australia, so why would government be in the business of competing with business? Qantas was privatised. Then they started the privatisation of Telstra.
I have often said I grew up in a post office back in the days of the PMG, the Postmaster-General. When I was a young kid, no one wanted to be involved in telecommunications in Australia. It was the government that kick-started telecommunications across Australia through the PMG. Of course, over a period of 40-odd years, competition crept into the market with other players, to the point there are literally thousands of companies in Australia operating telecommunication businesses. Why should Australia own a company that competes with those owned by private business? It gives them an unfair advantage.
Look around Australia and you see what Labor governments have done. They have privatised tramways, nursing homes, prisons – goodness me, they have even lotteries. Labor truly is the party for privatisation, without a doubt.
A few months ago, I was at a Treasurers’ meeting in Canberra when Joe Hockey first raised the asset renewal process. The Commonwealth has put a 15% bonus on the table for asset sales. They understand it is extraordinarily difficult for governments, irrespective of their political persuasion, to privatise things, so he put a 15% incentive in place.
It was an interesting meeting, because, instantly, the Treasurer from South Australia, Tom Koutsantonis – although he is a Labor man, I greatly admire him as he is a lovely bloke who seems to be quite switched on to a range of things – said, ‘Mr Hockey, this is all wrong. You cannot do this. It is unfair to South Australia because we have sold everything there is to sell. We are being penalised because we have privatised everything already.’
When you come to the Northern Territory, you would swear this was the Labor Party of 60 years ago. It is not a modern Labor Party, but one from a bygone era. It is opposed to privatisations and is all for the worker, propping them and using taxpayer money to fund jobs. In many regards, that is what it is about.
I remember in the 2013-14 budget, the then member for Casuarina, Mr Kon Vatskalis, said, ‘Of course we had to go into debt. How else were we to pay teachers, nurses and doctors?’ Labor has a view that it is up to the taxpayer, and if the taxpayer cannot afford it, we have to go into debt to pay wages. That is a big no-no generally in economic terms, but it seems to be okay for the Labor Party here. It does not care that we need to go into further debt to fund vital infrastructure to see the growth of the Territory.
It is rather sad that this Labor Party in the Northern Territory is so out of touch. In fact, I do not think it is out of touch, it is just playing cheapjack politics because 10 years ago it tried to sell what is on the table now. They have had a change of heart. They have decided it is in their political interest now to be seen to oppose this.
Interestingly enough, walking around the community, I have not heard too many people say to me that we should not be selling TIO. Most people realise that TIO is the last standing government owned insurance business in Australia, which has some major problems, and unless it can diversify its risk somewhat further, it will create problems for us into the future. Most Territorians want to see the Territory economy grow and prosper. They understand money needs to be provided for infrastructure to do that. Going further into debt or increasing taxes further is not a good way of doing that, particularly when we have so much latent cash tied up in an insurance business that competes with other businesses that operate in the Northern Territory.
When TIO was first created, there was a lack of insurance products in the Northern Territory. People found it very difficult to get insurance. The government of the day saw a need to step in and provide what the market was unwilling to provide, very similar to how the Postmaster General’s Office was set up and our telecommunications network in Australia was first kicked off – because there was a lack of interest in the private sector to build the wires and the communication devices needed to put in place a communication system across Australia. Government saw the need to provide that service.
Obviously now, some 40-odd years since the instigation of TIO, we have a deep market. There is a number of companies you can buy insurance products from in the Northern Territory. Those companies, I do not think, are that thrilled they are competing in the marketplace against a government owned institution.
Many speakers have outlined the problems with TIO. I have worked for some time in insurance over the years, and have a limited understanding of the business. I am no great expert, but I have an understanding of how insurance companies operate. Fundamentally, in the insurance world, bigger is better. It is not being big for the sake of being big, it is the benefits that size brings to an insurance company which allow insurance companies to diversify their risk. Over the last several decades we have seen an amalgamation of insurance businesses across the world because of the benefit that size brings. It is a very simple argument. It is about not putting all your eggs in one basket and making sure you have all bases covered.
The problem TIO has, of course, is that about 90% of its product is in the Northern Territory and 90% of that product is in the northern suburbs of Darwin. It cannot really diversify its holdings unless it tries to expand its business interstate and overseas. Whilst it sounds good to say, yes, we can have a government owned insurance business that is possibly one day truly global, the time and effort of getting there is beyond the wit of parliaments and governments. It is something that is better left to private enterprise. Governments should not be in the business of trying to compete in a global nature with private enterprise.
If we continue to head down this path, what it might mean for the Territory is – touch wood – if we have a major disaster not just the Territory Insurance Office is exposed, but the Northern Territory government and, through government, the people of the Northern Territory.
It is interesting to say, ‘TIO was the only insurer to pay out for the Katherine floods’. The Katherine floods were an isolated event. Goodness me, if we had another Cyclone Tracy hit Darwin and a large percentage of houses are knocked over, major infrastructure damaged and the like, it is very concerning that TIO would have some difficulty paying out all claims without the backing of government to provide more resourcing to make sure all claims are paid. This is why it is important to have a diversified portfolio: to make sure TIO can get reinsurance and can diversify its risk and not have all its eggs tied up in one basket.
I heard talk that TIO could be worth about $0.5bn. If that is true, it is the right time to sell the Territory Insurance Office. I note last year was the first year in a long time it made a profit. The member for Johnston seems to think the best time to sell an asset is when it is losing money. I do not know whether that is standard thinking across the opposition, but the best time to sell it is the time when you can maximise the price you will get for it. Now seems as good a time as any. My view is it should have been sold in 2005 when Labor first suggested it, but they had no mandate from the board. The board was opposed to it. Now the board is for it and it is probably a better time to look at selling.
I am supportive of the sale of the Territory Insurance Office. It is high time we liberated the capital Territorians have tied up in that organisation and allow it to be used to develop and grow the north. Now is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. The federal government is focused on northern development. The Territory government, along with Queensland and Western Australia, is also focused on developing the north. Now is the time to look to recycle assets. Now is the time to look at the types of infrastructure we need and do some serious hard thinking about the Territory we want to live in in 10 years’ time. It is not just Australia that is focused on north Australia, but all those countries in our region.
The Chief Minister is aware of the focus on the Northern Territory. He has done enough overseas travel. He has met enough people from interstate and around the world to know there is a large focus on the north and now is the time not to be dilly-dallying, but to be working to grow the north.
I again thank the Chief Minister for introducing this motion. It is wonderful to see a government with the intestinal fortitude to make big decisions. For so long we have watched benign governments full of people who are scared of their own shadows who would not even consider doing this. It is fantastic that the Northern Territory has a leader who is prepared to lead, make the tough calls for the benefit of the Northern Territory and take on the naysayers on the other side.
The Labor Party is the party of privatisation in Australia. It privatised the Commonwealth Bank, Qantas, Telstra, lotteries, tramways, nursing homes and prisons. There is practically nothing Labor has not privatised anywhere in the country. As Tom Koutsantonis in South Australia said – and that Labor government has been there for more than a decade now – it is not fair for them because Labor has already sold everything it can possibly sell.
The reason Labor members here are jacking up about this is simple. They are doing it for cheapjack political points. They know it, we know it.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, that is why the Chief Minister has called a mature discussion about it. He does not want to see cheapjack politics involved, he wants to see a proper debate to try to extract from Territorians what it is we can use all of this liberated money for that will see the development and growth of north Australia.
Ms MOSS (Casuarina): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this motion and the amendment introduced by the member for Nelson that all matters relating to the future sale of TIO are scrutinised by the Public Accounts Committee. This is an amendment I support. This discussion is too important for the Territory not to support it. I reinforce what my colleagues have said today; we do not want to see TIO sold.
Over the course of these sittings it has been interesting to watch the changing nature of the conversation about the sale of TIO. Last night we heard the Chief Minister say:
- Yes, we are seeking final offers for TIO. When the final offer comes in we will move extremely quickly if we decide to make the sale.
What a difference a week makes. Tonight the member for Sanderson said the MAC Scheme will not be sold. Members on this side of the Chamber and Territorians will appreciate hearing exactly what your plans are for TIO.
The Chief Minister has made reference on a number of occasions about wanting to have a mature debate about the sale of TIO. Apparently a mature debate does not include taking one simple question to Territorians: do you want the TIO to be sold? The Chief Minister talked about issues at TIO that need to be addressed. However, rather than suggesting alternatives or discussing some of the alternatives raised today and genuinely including the views of Territorians, the government shoots through to a sale hoping this incentive of submitting a wish list will placate those who disagree with the sale. Consultation is a two-way process. There is significant objection to the sale of TIO already, without the government taking that decision to Territorians.
Today we have heard a range of analogies from a beaten up car, to paper notes and plastic notes. We are talking about a public asset that is important to Territorians.
Over the last few months we had petitions on a stall at Casuarina Square calling on the government to rule out the sale of TIO and this petition has been very popular. People have sought us out to sign that petition. The same petition has been outside the offices of many of my colleagues. Again, Territorians have been taking this opportunity to speak out against the sale of TIO. Businesses and TIO customers are approaching their local members. In fact, the first constituent through my door last week was somebody wanting to talk about TIO.
While doorknocking at Casuarina, a number of people raised this issue with me, wanting TIO to remain where it belongs as a public asset, and for us to fight for it. Member for Blain, if you can see this is a sensitive issue with Territorians, then I hope you will be lobbying your colleagues to take this to Territorians and have a proper discussion with them.
The CLP government did not come clean with Territorians about seeking final offers for TIO during the by-election when these issues were raised. People would have been more than happy to discuss their concerns with you and give you their views on this decision had they been given the chance. It is disingenuous to claim that the CLP government wants a mature conversation about this issue when the first step is to put the question to Territorians about whether or not they want the sale to go ahead.
Perhaps the government is fearful that the answer will not be the one they are looking for – the one that matches the actions that seem to have been taking place behind the scenes. Perhaps that is why the government is encouraging the public to embark on putting forward ideas for spending profits made from selling TIO, with no option for providing a view on the sale.
Last week, we learned the government was talking about the sale of this public asset as early as March. This evening, the member for Katherine talked about the need for governments to make urgent decisions. Of course this is true, but if we believe what has been said in these sittings, the sale of TIO has been talked about without Territorians for at least six months. At no point since March has the government seen fit to hold a genuine conversation with Territorians about the sale of this asset – not about spending the profits of a hypothetical sale, which is apparently becoming more real by the minute, but the actual sale. I appeal to the government again to take it to the people. You have the time and the means to put this decision to Territorians, but it seems the decision has already been made.
A call for genuine consultation is not a matter of sentiment; it is a matter of valuing the voices of a huge number of Territorians who want to voice their concerns about this potential sale, and who, as my colleague the member for Fannie Bay quite rightly said, have built trust based on experience. In the TIO’s Annual Financial Report 2013-14, the Chief Executive, Richard Harding said:
- As we continue to develop a unique customer experience based around products for Territorians and local claims and call centres, our customers are rewarding us with their loyalty.
It would not be right to debate this without continuing to raise the fact that Territorians should be given a genuine say in this conversation. People are concerned about a number of aspects of a potential sale of TIO. They want to continue to access their banking services locally and to know their insurer will not only continue to pay out in the event of cyclone or flooding, but will pay out quickly if that was to occur. They are concerned about the jobs of Territorians providing those services and keeping the Territory Insurance Office simply that.
Public assets sold in other states and territories have shown us these things are at risk. When the devastating floods occurred in Queensland there were significant cases where payouts were slow to be issued, flood victims found themselves paying much more than they expected or, worse still, were not adequately covered. The government continues to tell us about the number of insurers that offer cyclone and flood coverage – which is fantastic for Territorians – and how important it has been for us to have TIO offering these products, ensuring that other insurers must offer them to be able to compete in the Territory market. In these circumstances, this is about people being able to put their lives back together and getting back on track quickly.
The Leader of the Opposition shared with us the important support TIO provides this community through partnership, with sponsorship of a large range of community services and initiatives, from CareFlight to DriveSafe NT. I will mention a couple more.
Employees from TIO volunteer a huge amount of time to the initiative Party Safe at a range of the Northern Territory’s major events. Their efforts create a dialogue about reducing risks when drinking, done in their own time at some of the biggest events in the Northern Territory.
TIO also supports the pinnacle event on the National Youth Week calendar, the Young Achiever Awards. This is an incredibly important evening in recognising the contributions of young people in their workplaces, in leadership, in their communities, on the sports field, as young carers and more. TIO has many young employees, and a number of my peers have gone on to increase their contribution as a result of being recognised at these awards. This is because TIO is not just an insurance office or another business run by a multinational company, it is local. TIO is part of this community, and that is part of the strength of its brand.
If a decision is made to sell TIO and this sale, as the Chief Minister put it, moves extremely quickly, there are still many questions looming about the security of these initiatives and this support for our community.
I am glad the member for Nelson talked about TIO employees, as I will too. For a moment, I invite those on the other side of the Chamber to imagine what this must be like for those working across the road at TIO this week. Conversations are being held here about the future of the organisation they work for. One day the Chief Minister said no decision had been made about the sale, the next that the government is at the final stage of seeking offers. This must be a time of incredible uncertainty and stress for them. As stated in the chairman’s report in TIO’s 2013-14 annual report:
- While financial performance is critical to creating a sustainable company, it would not be possible without the efforts of our people.
If the CLP government is at the stage of looking at final offers, what support and safeguards are in place for them into the future? How will change be managed to ensure their jobs are secure? Let us not forget that when we sell a public asset to a business, it becomes purely an asset for making a profit.
Territorians are already feeling the pressure of the increased cost of living. As mentioned previously by my colleagues, there are many major stakeholders who do not agree with this sale. Let us not put Territorians in a position of having to choose now what to go without to cover themselves in the event of a natural disaster. The Northern Territory is at real risk of cyclone and flood. The potential for Territorians and businesses to be left vulnerable by making the wrong decision in this case is real, so be up front with Territorians about your plans.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I join the call for the government to stop rushing through this decision to sell a major asset and to have, in the Chief Minister’s own words, a mature conversation with Territorians about whether they want it sold.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will summarise a bit of what was said in relation to the potential sale of TIO going to a Public Accounts Committee.
Perhaps I should go back a little for those who knocked that idea – and a number of people did – and say part of the reason was it was a halfway point to getting the public involved. I would prefer the government to have some face-to-face meetings with the public to put its arguments. The government has put some very good arguments which I can understand; I am not silly.
I walked down the street today past Uncle Sam’s. I was not eating there today. The first thing the bloke said to me was, ‘Do not sell TIO’. That is the impression I am getting from many people I meet. I met someone outside the Westpac Bank this afternoon when I went to the ATM, ‘Do not let them sell TIO’. I did not even know the gentleman.
I am saying the government needs to talk to the people is because they are not with you on this. If you will not do that, then one of the alternatives is to go through a bipartisan Public Accounts Committee which could go out to the people. That committee has government members on it who can put forward the policy of the government. Other people on that Public Accounts Committee could also question and put forward other ideas ...
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, I have been advised by the Clerk that you do not get to talk on this. I have been advised that he advised you of that. I have made a mistake, so I will give you one minute to sum up, then I will hand over to the Chief Minister.
Mr WOOD: That is fine. I apologise to the Chief Minister, I was not trying to butt in. I was given advice by the Speaker that I could respond to the amendment.
Mr Giles: I was out of the room, I missed the conversation, sorry.
Mr WOOD: I have just been told I cannot in mid-stream. Quickly then. Thank you for the one minute.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: My pleasure.
Mr WOOD: I put it to the government this way; the PAC is body which could scrutinise for the people what the government is suggesting. I do not have a problem with that. I am saying that in this debate, the people have missed out. As I said, people came to me and said, ‘Do not sell TIO’. I do not know some of those people.
The government has not relayed its message. If it believes it has a good message, why is the Chamber of Commerce saying, ‘We do not agree with this’? Even though you might have a good argument, you are not selling that argument. That is where it falls down. The government knocks me about trying to get the PAC to look at it. I do not think it is willing to talk to people on the ground. This was an opportunity to have a bipartisan group talk to people to see what they thought because they have been left out of the conversation.
Mr Deputy Speaker, as for the member for Katherine’s comment about calling for committee inquiries all the time, your government just appointed me to the fuel pricing committee.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Do I take it that you do not want to be part of the fuel pricing committee?
Mr Wood: No, I did not say that. He said I am all about committees; I am happy to be.
Mr GILES: A committee is needed where it is warranted and can provide good analysis.
I have explained why things have to move quickly in a situation like this. I just heard the member for Casuarina say that she supports the PAC and also supports employees not being left in limbo. I have said employees are one of the three main things under consideration through this process. If you went slowly on a sale process you would have enormous financial ramifications for government because depositors would pull their money out and it would create a massive liquidity risk for TIO, particularly from a banking perspective. Also, if you went until 1 June, or any other period of time, employees would be in limbo for that period.
We will not be supporting the amendment.
Thank you to members for a considered debate on this important issue. I seek to address some of the issues raised by members.
There was a comment on pricing. In an area like cyclone cover, TIO is no longer the cheapest. Its prices usually sit at the middle of the market. There are concerns about the increases in prices in Queensland and a belief that could happen here; however, it is a fear not based on fact. There is a very simple reason why insurance is cheaper here and why prices will not skyrocket as they have in Queensland. It is the nature of the underwriting risk. Anyone who understands the insurance industry knows that. I am happy to explain.
North Queensland’s exposure to highly intense cyclones and large catastrophic insurance losses is significantly higher than in the Territory. It has a very long east-facing coastline exposed to cyclone which is home to numerous cities and towns, which means it has a much greater level of risk to insurers. It can be seen by the size of losses arising from Cyclones Yasi and Larry, which were in excessive of $1bn each. We do not have the level of infrastructure here – the resorts, the big hotels, the high-rises or the population.
In addition, the Territory’s Building Code is significantly stronger than Queensland’s, coming into effect earlier as a result of Cyclone Tracy and 90% of Darwin being rebuilt to cyclone code. The vast majority of the Territory’s building stock has been built to that stronger code. This is not the case in Queensland, where many of the buildings are much older than before the code came in. Simply, TIO has said if it was to cover north Queensland the premiums would still be exactly the same.
Regardless of who owns TIO in the future, pricing for flood cover is a difficult issue. Let us not mince words, it is a challenge. We know that prices will increase substantially in many parts of the Territory under the current structure. TIO has already said it is examining how it should price flood cover into the future in light of significant increases in global reinsurance costs and developments in flood insurance nationally. Prices in many parts of the Northern Territory will go up exponentially under TIO because of the change in the risk profile.
Flood is a concern around Australia and all governments are dealing with this. It is a cost blow-out but it is about rebalancing the risk. It is an issue the Territory will need to confront, whether TIO is retained under government ownership or not. That is why we talk about realising asset value in TIO and putting it into flood mitigation strategies to help put downward pressure on insurance policy pricing into the future.
People in high-risk flood zones are incurring higher cost due to that risk. Since the Queensland floods in 2011, the insurance market has been focused on pricing flood risk at its true cost, driven by the Commonwealth government’s implementation of common definition of ‘flood’ and the release of the National Flood Information Database, coordinated by the previous federal government.
The issue being addressed across all markets is how governments can impact affordability through a suitable partnership with the insurance industry on mitigation. That is where we want to put much of the TIO revenue, should it be sold.
The recent Productivity Commission report recommends that governments focus on a combined strategy of short-term subsidy and long-term mitigation actions, which is where we are looking.
Flood insurance costs in Katherine are not an issue that relate to TIO’s ownership. It does not matter in Katherine if TIO is owned by government. There are issues about the appropriate cost for the risk and how the risk profile is being put into Katherine, and will be put into the storm surge areas in the northern suburbs in Darwin. We have to act before these things occur to help provide future downward pressure on what will be an escalating pricing system across all insurance agencies.
The government will continue to work with TIO regardless of who its owner is in the future, to try to address reducing risk for flood and storm surge and storm water mitigation. It is a challenge. Infrastructure solutions can help present a response to that challenge. Identifying the resources to do that is important and is part of the move to help TIO become more competitive into the future. Its sale would also realise some money to put into flood mitigation which would help put downward pressure on premiums.
The TIO was originally established as no insurers were offering workers compensation cover in the Territory. There was a good reason for it to be owned by government because most commercial insurers and many of the banks did not have an interest in the Territory.
However, the Territory has come of age in those 35 years and now we see a range of insurers here. We have built a community and industries that attract global businesses. They want to be here as they see our potential. This is reflected in the fact that over the past five years the unemployment rate in the Territory has sat under 2%. Our population has grown. In 1979, our population was just 100 000, now it is 250 000 people. Then, our budget was $500m, now it is $5bn and above.
The growth in the Territory and the maturing of our industries is especially clear in the area of insurance. Today we have 12 insurers competing across the Territory and all offer cyclone cover, and only one does not provide flood cover.
Opening up the market by releasing TIO will see more competition in this market. Long gone are the days when Territorians could not get cover. Now we have a highly-competitive growing market that will grow more when we release TIO. Regardless of TIO’s ownership structure, Territorians will continue to have access to the insurance policies they now have.
A couple of the points made by the opposition were fairly decent questions and I have responses.
The question of nationals and multinationals misses the point that they can have access to economies of scale and a better place to diversify risk. TIO prices risk for pre-cyclone homes on the same basis as other insurers, and it will be more location based into the future. Hence the reason some premiums will go up.
The manager of the MAC Scheme will need to comply with claims about performance standards in the management contract, and attendance care benefits established in any legislation that comes through for the sale. The MAC manager will be overseen by a MAC commission which will monitor the management of the scheme on behalf of government.
MAC will be maintained as government owned. Things like CareFlight and its sponsorship will be maintained, as it is a MAC initiative rather than a commercial insurance initiative. The DriveSafe NT Remote program will stay because it is funded by the MAC Scheme, not by the insurance component. MAC will remain a public asset and will not be sold, just the management will be outsourced. Schemes that are sponsored by MAC will all be retained.
In response to a point made about the National Partnership Agreement on Asset Recycling, every state and territory jurisdiction, including the two Labor jurisdictions of South Australia and the ACT, signed up to the NPA in COAG about six months ago.
In response to some of the member for Nelson’s comments, insurance markets are more complex since 2006. Major disasters have affected reinsurance markets. Combined with technological developments, disaster cover is priced on a more sophisticated basis, providing for more effective diversification. TIO has limited capacity to exploit these benefits; capital markets are also more global. I add that if TIO fully reinsured, prices would put many of TIO’s policies out of the reach of many Territorians. That is a challenge.
Any expansion of TIO’s operations outside of the Northern Territory or partnering with another insurer will increase the government’s risk exposure under the guarantee. I note some Labor members called for TIO to be allowed to expand interstate and that the NT government should financially back those policies. That is an outrageous claim. That would put tens of billions of dollars of debt on to the NT government’s books. I am not sure who said that. I hope it was not the shadow Treasurer, whoever that is, because that would be a financial disaster.
Member for Nelson, I did not hear you say this, but I have notes here that say you spoke about the option of a public float where Territorians could buy shares. That was something I raised that was interesting. Many years ago, I think it was AMP and NRMA, both publicly listed through an initial public offering. That was an opportunity for TIO, but the advice I received was that given the size of TIO and its capitalisation opportunities, it would not raise the right amount of funds. It may be able to return a very slight benefit to Territorians, but the time line of how long it would stay a public company on a stock exchange would not be long as it would be sucked up by other insurance bodies because of the same issues being faced now by the Northern Territory government. They would not have the capital to expand. It was investigated, but the advice was it could not be done.
You made comments, member for Nelson, about Indigenous communities being insured. One thing to remember is the majority of assets in Aboriginal communities are federal or Territory government assets which are self-insured. Government owns them, so if anything happens government pays for them again, rather than having insurance. Second, the shire councils that operate with assets operate in a competitive environment. They go out for tender or RFP. I am advised there has been an appointed broker by the name of Jardine Fleming, which places its business into the competitive insurance market. I do not know who it insures with, but the company goes to market on a competitive basis, just like anybody else.
We heard comments today about cyclone mitigation programs. I think the member for Katherine raised the issue about what happened between 2001 and 2009. There was a federal government program. I understand every state and territory jurisdiction applied for funding under that flood mitigation program to allow for ameliorating some of the risk. Katherine would have been a perfect place, as would Rapid Creek – for the member of Johnston – or any of the storm surge areas throughout the northern suburbs. The previous Territory Labor government did not put an application in for any of those funds to remove any flood risk in the Northern Territory. That is a missed opportunity; the program closed in 2009.
We also heard today that the federal government, through the Productivity Commission, is considering changing the national natural disaster scheme. We need to plan for these changes, not just sit around navel-gazing. They want to see investment in flood mitigation to reduce risk in the medium to longer term. The previous Territory government looked at supporting this initiative; we have supported it in government. That means we must act now before disasters occur and lower the level of risk, or the impact of that risk, should events occur, whether by acts of God or otherwise.
There was a comment made by the opposition that TIO should continue because of market failure. There is no market failure in the Northern Territory. There is a robust insurance industry which is competitive, sustainable and based on the best formula from around the world on how risk is managed. The challenge we have is that TIO is too small to compete in that environment against those global players who have access to capital.
I also have another note about how Labor wanted to underwrite insurance policies in north Queensland and Western Australia. That is fiscally irresponsible. I call on whoever said that to denounce that commentary because that would put the Territory in ruins.
Imagine if TIO was insuring people in Cairns and they had a cyclone and it cost $1bn, well above our reinsurance amount. Where would we be then? We would send the Territory broke because you insured in Cairns. That is completely irresponsible of whoever made those comments. The opposition members again demonstrate they do not really understand markets or the economy, particularly the insurance market.
Talking about a competitive environment in the Territory from an insurance point of view – we are not talking about the banking issues at the moment – there is competitive market and a well-indicated lack of interest from some insurance companies to want to enter the Territory market (1) because it is small and (2) because they are competing against a government-backed insurance agency. It is not considered to be a level playing field despite the fact that TIO operates on a commercial basis. Freeing up TIO should increase competition in the Northern Territory.
There is a range of other smaller matters I have the opportunity of talking about, but they have been raised in a number of other responses. I will get back to the points about investing in flood, storm surge and storm water mitigation, the asset recycling component and the establishment of the infrastructure future fund, for which a name is still being determined.
The idea of an infrastructure future fund is to put aside money for future investment in economic initiatives from the proceeds of port leasing – which will free up the port to grow – and the potential sale of TIO banking, insurance, management rights and the MAC withdrawal process. It is about economics. Any other resources that might be put towards non-economic activity such as community infrastructure – like the model I spoke about earlier today in regard to investing in Royal Darwin Hospital or flood mitigation works – would generally be seen as non-economic activity and would not attract the 15% asset recycling component, which is fine. I have said before the 15% asset recycling model by Joe Hockey is not the reason government is looking at this. We are looking at this for the sole purpose of helping TIO into the future.
The fund legislation is being prepared now. I would like to think we could introduce it into parliament in November to debate it up hill and down dale. If a bid comes in for TIO banking and so forth, we would have to move quickly to protect the liquidity of TIO and the interests of those who have loans and finance arrangements with the bank. We are quite willing to do that in support of that industry.
I commend the motion to the House. I thank very much all members on this side of the Chamber who embraced the opportunity to debate this motion with open arms, have good solid ideas and who dispelled any myths or rumours.
I thank the member for Nelson for raising a range of good questions, all of which I am happy to either take on board or respond to. The question about the Stock Exchange IPO was a bloody good question. That was a direction I thought we should take in the first place, but was well advised against it. I fully understand and accept why that is not the way to go, for a range of reasons.
As we move forward over the next few days, there will be an opportunity for us to enter dialogue with anyone who would like to talk to me or government about what we could do, as part of the criteria for the the sale, so we could ensure we protect a range of different things, most importantly, that TIO – its sponsorship, its name, its brand and everything – stays. A fundamental from my point of view is to protect the most important attributes of TIO, that being its employees and customers. We have those strong policies of flood and cyclone components put into the mix in those negotiations.
Member for Nelson, if you have other things you want to raise with me I suggest you get them to me in the next few days. I would like to take them on board because anything that is reasonable will be considered in the passage of the sale, should that occur. I would like to have an open approach to sensible negotiations.
Mr Deputy Speaker, it is the same with anyone in the Chamber. I do not think I will get that from Labor naysaying, but if anyone has a sensible approach, I would appreciate open and honest feedback. We do not support the amendment and we put the motion.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
- Ayes 8 Noes 13
Ms Fyles Mr Barrett
Mr Gunner Mr Chandler
Ms Lawrie Mr Conlan
Mr McCarthy Mr Elferink
Ms Moss Mrs Finocchiaro
Mr Vowles Mr Giles
Ms Walker Mr Higgins
Mr Wood Mrs Lambley
Mrs Price
Ms Purick
Mr Styles
Mr Tollner
Mr Westra van Holthe
Amendment negatived.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
- Ayes 13 Noes 8
Mr Barrett Ms Fyles
Mr Chandler Mr Gunner
Mr Conlan Ms Lawrie
Mr Elferink Mr McCarthy
Mrs Finocchiaro Ms Moss
Mr Giles Mr Vowles
Mr Higgins Ms Walker
Mrs Lambley Mr Wood
Mrs Price
Ms Purick
Mr Styles
Mr Tollner
Mr Westra van Holthe
Motion agreed to.
TOBACCO CONTROL LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 88)
Continued from 26 August 2014.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome the debate and say up front the opposition will be supporting the amendments to the Tobacco Control Act.
This bill introduces a range of amendments which primarily target smoking in cars with children, mandating wholesalers are to provide tobacco sales information to the Territory government and tidying up some language around vending machines to make it consistent with Part 2AA of the Criminal Code Act.
It is well known that smoking is not good for anyone. Sadly, in the Territory we still top the list for the highest rates of smoking in the nation. Figures provided by the 2014 NT Tobacco Control Advisory Committee annual report show almost 60 000 Territorians smoke, which is around 32%, compared to 17% nationally; 66% of Indigenous men and 47% of Indigenous women smoke in the Northern Territory. The more remote you go, the more people smoke. For the non-Indigenous population, it is 28% for men and 20% for women. In the last 20 years there has been a positive steep decline in non-Indigenous women taking up smoking.
During pregnancy, a time where we know the mother’s health choices can directly impact their unborn child, we still have much more work to do. While 13% of non-Indigenous women smoke during pregnancy – a concern in itself – it is a deep concern that more than half of Indigenous women continue to smoke through pregnancy. Clearly there is a need for more work helping young Indigenous mums, especially those living in our remote communities, to understand the potential consequences for their unborn child of smoking and the exposure to others of smoking in their presence.
In Indigenous households there has been some positive progress, with an increase from 15% to 23% of homes with no smokers, and the percentage of homes where no one smoked inside increased from 40% to 48%. It is good that this health message seems to be working in practice: if you have to smoke, smoke outside the family home and not in the company of other family members and children.
Still, there is much more work to do in health promotion and awareness of the pitfalls of smoking – especially with young people taking up smoking – and supporting people who want to stop.
Some of these challenges are greater amongst some of the people on the lowest incomes and some of the most disadvantaged people in the Northern Territory. On top of a range of social, safety and other health problems many people face in the Territory, the consequences of poverty and poor health by smoking are further exacerbated by what people spend on cigarettes.
Let us not forget that smoking is highly addictive. Most people know smoking is not good for them and have a good idea of what the health problems are. Smoking can cause some fairly horrendous problems for individuals, such as lung and respiratory problems, cancers and heart problems. We have seen the cigarette packets that illustrate a range of other horrendous issues some people face. We also know when it comes to smoking around children there are some serious health issues associated with second-hand smoke. These include cancer, respiratory illnesses, middle ear infections and asthma. Also, with children exposed to second-hand smoke the rates of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome increase.
Cigarettes are costly for individuals and their families. They also are costly for the health system. We know cigarettes and addiction to smoking puts an additional burden on our hospitals, as people suffer from illnesses caused by smoking.
By the government’s figures, tobacco use also contributes to 7.8% of the burden of disease. This equates to costs of about $764m in the Northern Territory per year.
Children should not be exposed to second-hand smoke, especially in such a confined space as a car. I imagine most people in this Chamber struggle to understand why someone would want to drive a car knowing full well their children are in the back being exposed to second-hand smoke. It is completely unfair on children.
As parents we have a duty to protect and nurture our children, and to give them the best start in life. More broadly than that, I feel very strongly that every adult has a duty to do whatever they can to protect children from harm. As members of parliament, we have the ability to legislate appropriate measures, as we see in this bill today, to send a clear message that children must be protected from second-hand smoke. This is why these changes are responsible. I welcome the intent of this bill to introduce penalties for those who smoke in cars.
We have some questions about how the government anticipates promoting these changes. This is a great opportunity to get the message out about smoking in cars and the changes. However, there are also broader anti-smoking messages the government has an opportunity to deliver. It would be good if the minister could tell us a bit more about what the Department of Health intends to do about the promotion of these changes to the legislation to ban smoking in cars with children. Which locations around the Territory will they target? Will they be targeting certain language groups, for example? Which media will they use – radio, television, newspaper or social media? Will it be broader than just smoking in cars? Will they use it to send more of an anti-smoking message to those communities?
It would be good to find out a bit more about the practical enforcement of stopping people smoking in cars. What type of resources does the government anticipate supplying to train authorised officers to stop people from smoking in cars and issuing on-the-spot fines? It would also be good if the minister could give us an idea of how many people they anticipate booking for smoking in cars with children, how much of an issue it has been and what measures will be put in place to raise awareness about these new measures, especially out bush.
Another change to this legislation is to do with wholesale data collection. This bill will now make it possible for the Chief Health Officer to request that a wholesale provides information on the quantity of tobacco sold or supplied to retailers. This will give the Health department a picture of tobacco sales by location, which is a good thing. I was advised in a briefing that as wholesalers are already required to provide data to the federal government in order to comply with taxation requirements, this will be a relatively straightforward process. This also removes the burden from small business of doing this extra administrative work. This will better help target anti-smoking campaigns in the Territory, and give the Department of Health more information so it can better construct messaging to target people. It is a very welcome measure as part of this legislation and something we will be supporting.
Also in this amendment bill are changes to the language about cigarette vending machines. It is important there are strict requirements about vending machines to stop children accessing cigarettes. In my childhood it was pretty easy for people to go into hotels, for example, along the Esplanade, and access vending machines if they wanted to get their hands on cigarettes. This bill ensures there are strict conditions on the siting of vending machines, but ensures the wording is consistent with Part 2AA of the Criminal Code Act. This is a straightforward amendment to clean up language in the Criminal Code Act and another part of this legislation we support.
We are also keen for the minister to give us more information on how the department is monitoring vending machines across the Territory to ensure the laws under which they operate are complied with.
While we welcome this bill and the intent of the government in these areas of tobacco control as a positive step forward, we have seen other areas which have raised concerns regarding the Territory’s and the Abbott federal government’s commitment to funding to reduce smoking. These concerns were also raised in the 2014 annual report of the Northern Territory Tobacco Control Advisory Committee where it stated:
- However, there has been great uncertainty about the future of this Tackling Smoking program, which has led to reduced morale, the loss of experienced staff to more secure positions, and an inability to plan future work. This uncertainty began with the election of the new Australian Government in 2013, and seems likely to continue for another year until a review of the program is completed in 2014-15.
Associate Professor David Thomas, the head of the Tobacco Control Unit from the Menzies School of Health Research recently wrote:
- I think it may be more important for the Review Team to focus not on the haste of the program in its early years, but on how to correct the loss of momentum in the last year.
The uncertainties of funding for this large program (and of course many other government-funded programs) in the months leading up to and following the election of the new government saw many good staff leave projects for more secure jobs and some projects stall.
The budget cut $130m from the Tackling Indigenous Smoking program. Some projects have been cut and some have reduced funding.
After 11 years of service, the Centre of Excellence in Indigenous Tobacco Control (CEITC) at the University of Melbourne was brutally axed.
For many years CEITC had been the rallying point for people around the country concentrating on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tobacco control, and had been critical in convincing the previous government to increase its investment in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tobacco control.
Many health professionals are waiting to see what happens. Granted, this has a direct impact on the Territory. Can the minister outline where this has created cuts that have impacted local people? We know Indigenous Territorians have the highest rates of smoking. This is a time when we need to send a clear message to the Abbott government that these cuts will not close the gap on life expectancy. In fact, it will mean we lose more valuable ground that was made. We have also seen some mixed messages from the government with regard to its smoking policies and commitment.
Today we see a situation where the government has made appropriate and welcomed moves to toughen smoking laws. However, this comes after loosening other smoking restrictions that had been introduced. Looking back to adjournments earlier this year, on the evening where the former member for Blain, Terry Mills resigned, the Health Minister announced rollbacks of smoking restrictions. This included smoking at Royal Darwin Hospital and in clubs and pubs.
The NT Tobacco Advisory Committee, in its 2014 annual report, also commented on this. The report stated:
- At the same time the NT Government announced it would ban smoking in cars with kids, it announced small changes to legislation about smoking in pubs and clubs. We were disappointed they did not take this opportunity to increase the protection of staff and patrons from the dangers of secondhand smoke, only increasing what can occur in outdoor smoking areas. We remain concerned by the exposure of children to secondhand smoke in pubs and clubs from these outdoor smoking areas.
We also welcome the review into the use and potential regulation of e-cigarettes in the Northern Territory. There is a need for consultation and it would be good to hear a bit more about what work the government is intending to do in this area.
I have heard some ex-smokers on radio – and have had a very upset and panicking constituent come to see me – who were under the impression e-cigarettes were to be banned altogether. These people used e-cigarettes to help them quit smoking. It is important to make sure the right message goes out to ensure we do not raise too many alarm bells. I was quite taken aback by how panic stricken the person I spoke to was. Clearly we have to make sure the message is right.
In conclusion, we welcome this legislation and the government’s moves to ban smoking in cars where children are passengers. We welcome the work being done to ensure it can get more meaningful data from tobacco wholesalers so it can get a better understanding of where and what tobacco products are being sold in the Territory. That way it can better target its campaigns to ensure we do everything we can to reduce smoking rates in the Northern Territory.
There is a bit of work to do and fair bit of anxiety with regard to the Tackling Indigenous Smoking program. A figure of $130m is a huge cut and it is an area where we know work needs to be done to help more Indigenous Territorians quit smoking or not take up the habit in the first place. We need to make every effort to ensure those cuts are minimised in the Territory and that we do not lose good, dedicated professionals working in the health sector to tackle smoking.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Dr Jo Wright and Warwick Kneebone from the Department of Health for their briefing. It was greatly appreciated. Yes, we support this legislation and see it as another step in the right direction to reduce smoking in the Northern Territory.
Mrs FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, I wholeheartedly support this bill and am proud to be part of a government that supports and protects the most vulnerable members of our society.
This legislation prohibits anyone from smoking in a motor vehicle carrying a passenger under 16 years of age. It brings the Northern Territory law into line with the rest of Australia and ensures we continue our pursuit to provide a safe and healthy environment for Territory children.
I emphasise that children are vulnerable members of our society who need our care and protection, and that is our motivation for developing this legislation. It is a fact that second-hand smoke is extremely dangerous to people, especially children. It is a poison that is unsafe at any level. To put it bluntly, smoking in a car carrying children and adolescents means you are knowingly and willingly poisoning them.
Second-hand smoke is produced in two ways in burning tobacco. The first is sidestream smoke, which is the smoke that emanates from the lit end of the cigarette or cigar. The other is mainstream smoke which is smoke exhaled by the smoker. Evidence shows the health risks of children inhaling second-hand smoke or passive smoking are significant.
Children’s and adolescent’s bodies makes them more vulnerable to the harmful effects of the poison. Babies who are surrounded by smoke in their household have an increased risk of developing a variety of respiratory illnesses, such as pneumonia and bronchitis, and are more susceptible to getting colds and middle ear infections. Furthermore, these children are more likely to develop asthma symptoms and suffer from asthma attacks than those who are kept away from second-hand smoke. Overall, passive smoking significantly affects the lungs of young people, with children developing horrible coughs which can be combined with the build-up of phlegm.
Along with respiratory problems that can develop in children, they are also at risk of suffering any one of a long list of illnesses or conditions that passive smoking adults might be struck with. Needless to say, lung cancer can be attributed to passive smoking. While young children are not often diagnosed with lung cancer, early exposure to tobacco smoke damages the lungs and may increase their risk of developing this horrible cancer in later years.
An important consideration for us all to take on board is that passive smoking is a cause of sudden unexpected death in infants or SUDI. SUDI includes fatal sleep accidents and sudden infant death syndrome or SIDS.
SIDS and Kids NT fully supports the Northern Territory government for introducing this important legislation. SIDS and Kids implores parents to keep their baby’s environment completely smoke free, which includes the family car.
Along with the health complications I have already outlined, SIDS and Kids advise me babies who are exposed to passive smoking do not arouse as well as babies in a smoke-free environment. Babies need to easily arouse during sleep so they can move their head, swallow and gasp for air if something obstructs their airways or throat.
Additionally, SIDS and Kids NT is unwavering in its stance against passive smoking around children. Smoking is one of the most important risk factors that can be modified to reduce the risk of SIDS and it knows this legislation will help reduce that risk.
Not only are there serious physical health effects for children when adults smoke in cars, there are other important points to remember surrounding a child’s understanding of smoking, the assertiveness of children, as well as parents’ modelling negative behaviour.
Children do not have a complete understanding of the risks of smoking and do not know the full effect second-hand smoke can have on their health. Therefore, they are less likely to try to avoid second-hand smoke, such as getting out of the vehicle when an adult lights a cigarette, or moving upwind when outdoors.
We need to remember that children are reluctant and often unable to confront adults. It is hard for a child to say, ‘Please do not smoke near me’, so it is not uncommon for children to bear the smoke and remain silent. What is worse is a car is a very confined space, and winding the windows down to let the smoke out is not a solution.
Importantly, when an adult smokes around a child, the adult is demonstrating that smoking is normal behaviour. Only 13% of the Australian population aged 14 years and over smoke tobacco. We need to show children it is not the norm or part of living a normal healthy lifestyle.
Other benefits may extend to changing parents’ thinking, as this legislation might encourage parents not to smoke around children in other places, such as at home or at sport on the weekends. It might also go some way to remind parents they should move away from their child when they smoke, a simple act that can bring huge benefits for their child.
Other jurisdictions already have this legislation and it has created healthier habits among adults who smoke. This legislation will be a success story for parents, children and our society as a whole. Police will be encouraged to enforce this new law and do what they can to help protect Territory kids.
Smoking brings illness and death and costs society dearly. Smoking kills 15 000 Australians each year, with the social, health and economic costs adding up to over $31bn. In the Territory, smoking costs us over $700m every year and I dare not think about how many lives of Territorians have been lost due to tobacco.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this legislation will no doubt help protect our children. It will ensure they are provided with a safe environment when travelling with adults. The health of our young ones is paramount and we are committed to helping them grow as healthy and happy as they can be. I commend the minister for bringing this bill to the house and I encourage everyone in the House to support it.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I also support the bill. I hope my daughter, my electorate officer and the cleaner are not listening because, unfortunately, they all smoke. When I mention it I am basically told to go away and stop preaching. I understand it is a very difficult habit for many people to give up.
Unfortunately, in my job as local member, I have seen many people die from the effects of smoking. I have been to many funerals of people who smoked. That was the main cause of the cancer that killed them.
It is easy to tell someone to give it up, but you have to understand it is not easy to give up ...
Mr Elferink: That is not true; I have given up lots of times.
Mr WOOD: That is right. But you are a strong man.
Mr Elferink: No, no, you missed the joke.
Mr WOOD: Sorry, I did not hear it all.
I remember some years ago listening to a tape from the BBC on various drugs which said for people to give up tobacco is like giving up heroin. It is not an easy drug to give up. If you can avoid getting into the habit in the first place, then you have a better chance of staying right away.
The section of the bill that has been amended is about prohibiting people smoking in a motor vehicle carrying children under the age of 16. I agree with that. Obviously if we can protect children from tobacco smoke we are doing something, at least, to reduce the harmful effects of – as we call it these days – passive smoking.
It is interesting that the government has made a rule that this only applies to people under 16. When they are 16 years and one day, it does not matter. We have this arbitrary rule for children, but they are human beings and smoking will affect them at any age.
In certain vehicles, like a public bus, you are prohibited from smoking. Whilst I support what has been presented today I wonder whether government should not have taken a further step and said, ‘You cannot smoke in a motor vehicle where you have other passengers’. We have made a distinction that it is harmful for someone 16 years and under. Even though it is harmful for people over 16, the impression you get from this amendment is that it is not such a concern. There seems to be an anomaly there.
As the member for Wanguri said, you have issues about policing it. If you can police it in relation to a person under 16, why can you not police it for a person over 16? We have this concept that it is dangerous to be in a vehicle where someone is smoking, but we discriminate in whether that is an offence based on the age of the person affected. If we are serious about the effect of passive smoking, that would apply to all people. It will be great if we work to make it harder for people to smoke.
This has brought to mind a couple of things that have happened in recent years in Singapore, New Zealand and Tasmania, where they have tried to set targets for no-smoking programs. There was a bill – I do not know whether it passed in Tasmania – which was based on the Singapore model under which if you were born after 2000 you could not be sold tobacco. It was revolutionary. It did not stop you from smoking, but it stopped you from buying cigarettes. Nobody could sell cigarettes to anyone born after 2000. The idea was that hopefully older people would be the only ones smoking and there would be fewer younger people doing it ...
Mr McCarthy: They would die out.
Mr WOOD: The member or Barkly hit it on the head. That is correct; that is what it was about.
I have not looked at the Singapore rules, but they were obviously trying to make it, eventually, a non-smoking country. They had the idea that if you were born after a certain year, you could not be sold cigarettes. Here if you are a certain age you cannot buy cigarettes; you have to show your ID. If we do not go down that path we should try to set some strong targets.
As the member for Wanguri said, many Indigenous people smoke far too much, which the statistics show. When I worked on Bathurst Island I remember children smoking. I remember the days when you could sit in the back of the ute; children would run behind the vehicle I was driving and yell out for smokes. Smokes would be thrown onto the road and they would pick them up.
It is a serious issue if we are to reduce the cost to the Territory and taxpayers who have to pay for the damage cigarette smoking causes people. Besides the social effects of smoking, with people being sick and families losing loved ones, there is an economic downside as well.
Anything we can do to reduce the number of people smoking – if we can put roadblocks in the way in the hope they will think about what they are doing – is a great thing. I am interested to know if the government has some long-term vision. In New Zealand, their vision is that New Zealand will be non-smoking by 2025. That does not mean there will not be any smoking, but they are restricting it so much with a target which will mean it is not totally out of existence, but very close to it.
Mr Deputy Speaker, it is a difficult area in the Territory, especially if we are to change the habit of many people that causes so much premature death, and sometimes terrible death. If this amendment can in some way help do that, then I support it.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Health): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank everyone who has participated in this discussion on the amendment to the Tobacco Control Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 (Serial 88) for their support and very intelligent contribution to the debate about the problem of smoking in the Northern Territory. It still is a huge problem in our community. I thank the member for Wanguri for providing some interesting statistics on smoking.
Tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable disease and early death amongst Indigenous Australians, with smoking responsible for about one in every five deaths. That is staggering. One in every five deaths of our Indigenous people is still attributed to smoking, after all the work that has been done and all the money poured into the awareness campaign about the damage smoking causes.
Among Indigenous Australians, tobacco use contributes to 80% of all lung cancer deaths, 37% of heart disease, 9% of all strokes and 5% of low birth weight babies. In Central Australia, rates of pneumonia among children are reported to be the highest in the world, reaching 78.4 cases per 1000 children every year – staggering.
Although we are seeing reductions in smoking rates across Australia, 42% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are daily smokers, compared to 16% in the non-Indigenous population. In some remote communities, this estimate is as high as 83%. Twice as many Indigenous people in Australia smoke than non-Indigenous people. This is particularly a big problem in the Northern Territory where our smoking rates are the highest in Australia.
We continue to work to battle this habit which causes profound health problems throughout our community. Yes, the member for Wanguri is correct; the Australian government recently announced funding cuts of $130m over five years to the Tackling Indigenous Smoking program, which amounts to more than one-third of the program’s annual funding. It beggars belief why it would do that, given the rate of smoking, the destruction it causes and the national commitment to Closing the Gap. Smoking is one of the biggest killers. For the federal government to make that significant cut is bewildering, to say the least.
I reiterate that this government is committed to continuing the campaign against smoking. We, as a government, understand the importance of making amendments with our Tobacco Control Bill to ensure we tighten it up and minimise the impact of smoking on our people.
As the member for Drysdale pointed out, we have to look after our most vulnerable in the community, the children. That is precisely what this legislation does. Very simply, as people have already stated this evening, banning smoking of cigarettes or tobacco in cars carrying children makes perfect sense. We are the last jurisdiction to bring in such legislation.
Once again, I find myself asking why Labor did not do it. Every other state in the country did it years ago. We have taken control of the government and moved on changing this legislation as soon as possible.
I will talk briefly about e-cigarettes, quite a controversial topic not just in the Northern Territory, but throughout Australia and internationally. Some of you may have seen a recent documentary on this – it may have been on Four Corners; I cannot remember precisely – talking about the traps and disadvantage of e-cigarettes.
One of the greatest criticisms pointed out to me by one of our local primary healthcare experts is these mechanisms, which are vaporising devices – the common term used when smoking these contraptions is ‘vaping’. It is not smoking, it is vaping. They resemble cigarettes, they look like cigarettes, and some of them resemble a cigarette with the yellowy coloured butt and the white end. Some of them do not resemble cigarettes as much, but they all resemble a smoking implement. The fact they are not is neither here nor there. The point is they look like cigarettes, the vapour that comes out of them looks like smoke, and particularly for young people it can almost glamorise cigarette smoking, which is precisely what we have been trying to counter for decades.
In the Northern Territory we have no regulations regarding e-cigarettes whatsoever. Anyone – whether you are two years old, 20 years old or 80 years old – theoretically can go into a shop and buy e-cigarettes or an implement and the vapour liquid to put in it. What is banned in Australia is the nicotine liquid that can be purchased, I understand, on the Internet. I am told even locally some shops sell the vaporising liquid with nicotine in it. That is illegal and should not be sold. However, nothing else is illegal. You can buy the whole outfit.
I carried out a fact-finding mission in Alice Springs a few weeks ago. I went to a local tobacconist and got the assistant to show me her cabinet with the devices in them. She described each and every one. There are dozens of different flavoured vaporising liquids you can use in them. She pointed out in her shop she does not sell any smoking products, whether they be tobacco or e-cigarettes, to anyone under the age of 18. That is a decision she made as a retailer. She described the different price categories. The cheapest vaporising devise was around $14 and the liquid was between $10 and $15. It is a much cheaper device than tobacco. For people who use them, particularly those who are trying to wean themselves off tobacco cigarettes, they find the consumption of e-cigarettes and the vaporising fluid is a lot cheaper than smoking cigarettes, which is a great incentive for some people.
As a government, we do not plant to ban these devices. Already the nicotine vaporising liquid is banned, so we do not need to touch that. However, we would like to bring in the same regulations for e-cigarettes as tobacco products. To allow children access to these implements would be a retrograde step.
There has been some confusion in the community about our intention. At this stage I am fairly confident – although it has not been to Cabinet yet – that none of us are interested in banning e-cigarettes because the jury is out. Some people find them incredibly useful when they are trying to get off tobacco cigarettes, and some doctors even recommend the use of e-cigarettes as opposed to other forms of nicotine or cigarette replacement.
We will consider, as a government, bringing in the same regulations for e-cigarettes as exist for tobacco cigarettes – as simple as that. The ban would only be for children or people under the age of 18 years. Generally, this government agrees if you are over 18 you can make a choice whether or not to buy e-cigarettes in a mature and informed manner.
I address a point the member for Nelson made about having a complete ban of cigarettes in cars with passengers, regardless of age. His point was if you were driving a car and you have a passenger, no matter what the age, it should be considered that smoking be banned.
The difference between an adult and a child is an adult can choose to get out of the car if the driver wishes to smoke, whereas a child may not normally have that choice. We are looking after the interests of children in this amendment to the legislation.
This has been a very positive move of this government. It will not stop here; we will continue to strive to reduce the level of smoking in the community. We have throughout the Northern Territory primary healthcare centres that are briefed to battle this. I have visited many remote health services and the fight against tobacco consumption is very high on their list of priorities. It is a part of their everyday work. They see the effects of smoking and they, as professional people, are briefed to combat it within a health framework.
We have that in place and it will not be affected by the budget cuts announced by the federal government for the Tackling Indigenous Smoking program. Our primary healthcare network throughout the Northern Territory is committed to the reduction of tobacco consumption.
Madam Speaker, I thank the members for their contributions.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Health) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
FIREARMS AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 94)
(Serial 94)
Continued from 28 August 2014.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, we support this bill. It essentially allows someone 14 years and over to play paintball. We have no problems with that. The only practical concern is safety.
I remember when a bill was first presented to allow paintball into the Northern Territory, and safety was raised then. This is a regulated sport that is managed. We are not convinced about the safety argument. The Chief Minister has talked about age-appropriate safety wear, which makes sense. There will be a size difference between a 14-year-old and an 18-year-old. Where before paintball participants were larger, there is an obvious size difference you will have in the safety gear. However, that can be managed on-site by the paintball company.
At the time the legislation was first presented for paintball, there were also concerns about encouraging people to shoot each other. I do not have sympathy for the argument that paintball can encourage or train people in violent behaviour. That is not something I buy into it, but it came up at the time. Safety is a practical concern that can be addressed.
The Territory is a great place to live, with big open spaces and warm weather all year round, so let there be paintball. That is, essentially, what led to it being allowed in the Territory in the first place. There is now an idea of letting more people play – no worries. Growing up in the Territory I would have loved to have had paintball as an option, whether in Alice Springs, Tennant Creek or Darwin. It would have been good. I would have taken it up, but it was not there; we had to do other things. But that is okay, you always find a way to entertain yourself in the Territory.
It is good paintball is here. We have no problems on our side in opening up the age. It is a good thing and increases the market.
There can be cheeky kids – not to say, Chief Minister, that you or I were cheeky kids; maybe the member for Johnston was a cheeky kid – who, between 14 and 18 – if I did not touch on this already – need parental consent. There is a chance a kid between 14 and 18 does not always receive parental consent, but looks like he has in how that is processed. I am sure there will be …
Mr Westra van Holthe: Kids would not do that, would they? Surely not?
Mr GUNNER: Which kid would do that? No Territory kid would do that! All visiting kids would do that.
There may be a management concern around the seeking of parental consent. I am sure no Territory kid has ever forged a note their parent has not signed.
Madam Speaker, we support this legislation; we have no problem with the opening up of paintball. With the Territory lifestyle, it is good to have paintball. It is good to allow Territory kids to have greater access to paintball, with the youth programs, etcetera. We have no problems with this at all.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, we often say in this House it is a pleasure to speak on a motion, bill or some other item of business that comes before government. However, this evening it genuinely is a pleasure to talk about this bill.
It is a pleasure because a couple of years ago the owner of Katherine Paintball in Katherine, Gary Hickey, and I had a conversation about paintball. He was lamenting to me that he was struggling a bit with his business because his clientele base was quite limited. Anyone over the age of 18 could legally play paintball. That restricted his clientele. He presented to me some information about other jurisdictions and the age ranges allowed to play paintball there. If I remember rightly one of those jurisdictions – it might well have been Tasmania, but I will stand corrected – had an age of 10 where children were able to play paintball. If it was not 10, I will stand corrected. It was quite young. In some jurisdictions it is definitely as young as 12.
To me it seemed a bit of a no-brainer that children of a reasonable age should be able to play paintball. I have played paintball in Queensland; I have not here. I know the sport is very highly regulated, well-looked after and the safety protocols in place are very robust.
It was that conversation in Katherine that started the ball rolling to where we are today. That is why I am delighted we have now arrived at the point where we will amend the legislation to allow children between the ages of 14 and 18, with parental consent, to join in the wonderful game of paintball.
One of the great things I like about this sport, as I do with all sports – and I am great supporter of all sport, particularly in Katherine – is it gets kids out from behind television and play station screens and all those things, to do something active. It teaches the children a bit of discipline and self-control. Let us face it, they can do probably the most important thing, and that is have fun. Children should be entitled to have fun. As long as they accept the responsibility that comes with something like picking up a paintball gun, they should be able to have fun.
When I was thinking about how moving the age sits in the bigger picture, I harked back to my policing days and my knowledge of the Criminal Code Act. My understanding is that children of the age of 10 or above are considered criminally responsible unless it can be shown they did not understand the nature of their actions. Once children reach that magical age of 14, they become fully criminally responsible under the law. Putting those two issues together – the age of criminal responsibility and lowering the paintball age – it seemed to me to be quite sensible and appropriate to reduce the age to 14, acknowledging that children reaching the age of 14 accept they have criminal responsibility so they should also be given some privileges that go along with that. One of the privileges afforded to 14-year-olds, as of tonight, will be to play paintball.
Most things that needed to be said on this debate have been said. I am pleased we have arrived at this point. Gary Hickey in Katherine and the two other paintball operators – one in Alice Springs and one in Darwin – will be delighted with the outcome of the passage of this legislation.
Madam Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for bringing the legislation into the House and all of those who worked behind the scenes to make it happen. A police review was done of the paintball legislation. Thank you to the police who conducted that. This is a good change, it is sensible, it works and, not only that, it supports small business.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): If you want to support small business, they are not in Darwin they are at Freds Pass Reserve. I am sure the Speaker would not like me to forget that United Paintball is in her electorate. I do not want to verbal you, Madam Speaker, but you and I both agree with the member for Katherine that if we can get children doing something, that is terrific. Freds Pass is a great recreational reserve – minus the swimming pool – and many kids use that reserve …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Perhaps on the Building the Territory website you might be able to nominate a swimming pool for the rural area.
Mr WOOD: I should say come in spinner. It has crossed my mind.
I concur with the member for Katherine. Right next to the paintball is the archery at Freds Pass. There are young people using bows and arrows. The only difference is you do not fire them into a person. Young people are given the responsibility of using a weapon, which can be dangerous if not used properly. All we are doing here is something similar; we are giving children an opportunity to take up a recreational sport and have a bit of fun. There is no harm in that.
As the member for Katherine said, it has been reviewed by the police. Obviously the paintball people are supportive of it because it will increase their business. In the case of Freds Pass, it will help expand the possibilities for people, because it is the best sporting facility in the Territory. I am not saying that just because I come from there but because of the number of sports held there. Anything from four-legged to two-legged – all sports are played there. It is a terrific facility and this will help make it a better facility.
Madam Speaker, I support the bill.
Mr GILES (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I thank the members for Fannie Bay, Katherine and Nelson for their support. There is not a lot of debate in a second reading such as this. The bill is only small with small changes. It is to lower the age from 18 to 14 and put in place the regulatory environment for parental approval for those aged between 14 and 18.
It brings the Territory regulations in line with other jurisdictions, member for Katherine. In Western Australia and South Australia children as young as 12 are allowed to participate. You mentioned Tasmania at 10, and it spurred my mind. I am sure somewhere allows 10-year-olds but my notes only indicate 12 in Western Australia and South Australia. It provides a level of fairness in the playing field across jurisdictions.
The member for Fannie Bay said he would love to have played paintball when he was younger. I played paintball many times. You have both spoken about kids playing it. The member for Fannie Bay spoke about a reluctance when paintball came to the Territory from many because they thought it would lead to a propensity for people to want to use guns.
I have been to a number of schools with programs to teach students how to use guns – whether that is clay targets or rifles – and make kids aware of the importance of gun safety and gun handling, and that is a sensible thing to do. I have been on many shooting trips where I have been with people who have not been well educated in safety mechanisms and the appropriate use of firearms. People are more of a danger to themselves in that environment. Any opportunity for people to be better educated on the importance of protection and safety around guns is very important. Potentially, paintball as a recreational sport can assist younger and older Territorians to get involved in educating themselves.
This will assist small business, member for Katherine. There is another element of removing red tape. I am not sure if you are aware, but since coming to government the Country Liberals have removed more than 200 pieces of red tape that have been holding us back. I am not sure if you are also aware, but between 2006 and 2011 the Northern Territory increased red tape to the point where it had the most in Australia and cost $4bn per year. Removing 200 pieces in two years is good but there is much more to go. This is more red tape removal that will not only give kids an opportunity to do something at a younger age, but assist and support business – the three paintball operators now in the Territory.
Madam Speaker, I thank members for their support of the Firearms Amendment Bill. Good luck to the business operators in the Territory who may see this as an opportunity to expand their business. Member for Katherine, it is always satisfying to deliver an outcome and a positive response to a policy commitment to local business to help them move forward. That is one of the joys of being in government and one of the mandates is you get to govern and make improvements for the Territory. Well done in that regard.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr GILES (Police, Fire and Emergency Services)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MOTION
Note Statement – Treasurer’s Annual
Financial Report
Note Statement – Treasurer’s Annual
Financial Report
Continued from 28 October 2014.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Health): Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure to talk in this Chamber to the Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report 2013-14, the TAFR.
This is a story of great progress and huge success for a government that has only been in power for just over two years. Since the Northern Territory general election in August 2012 the Northern Territory government has been focused on reducing Labor’s debt and returning the Northern Territory’s budget to a balanced position in 2017-18.
In the lead-up to the 2013-14 budget the priority has been meeting the cost of a range of unfunded legacy items and this government’s election commitments. When we first came to government, in the Department of Children and Families alone there was $30m of unfunded commitments from the former Labor government which it had not attended to. It had no money to pay for what it intended to spend. This is just one example of the lack of responsibility when it came to managing the funds of the Northern Territory.
The Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report establishes the Giles Country Liberals government’s credentials in managing the Territory’s finances and successfully nursing the Territory economy back to health. It was a broken machine when we came in, I assure you. Just two years ago the state of the Northern Territory’s books were appalling.
The general government sector operating balance is now in a surplus position of $119m, a $349m improvement when compared to the original 2013-14 budget. That is amazing progress and we, on this side of the Chamber are extremely proud of our work in this area. The surplus position means this element of the government’s fiscal strategy has been achieved a full three years ahead of the 2016-17 target year – incredible.
While returning the budget to a balanced position we have also improved services to Territorians. I am proud of the biggest Northern Territory investment in health this financial year, with an overall Northern Territory government investment of an additional $33.6m.
I heard an opposition member state that we had reduced health funding in the Northern Territory. Absolute nonsense! We have increased Northern Territory funding for the Department of Health by $33.6m. I am not sure where they get their information, but the appalling way they managed their budget over the 11-year period they were in reign is indicative of how they misunderstood how to go about fiscal management.
It is important to stress that the government has continued its focus on fiscal restraint with an emphasis on efficiency and service delivery improvements. The additional investment in the Health budget is a clear demonstration of the positive impact of this approach.
Overall, the operating outcomes have flowed through the Territory’s balance sheet and improved the net debt position, as I heard the new member for Blain talk about earlier today. The non-fiscal public sector net debt is $3.1bn for 2013-14, $1.3bn lower than the original 2013-14 budget projection. That is equivalent to the whole Health budget. The Health budget is the biggest of any in government, so that is, once again, staggering – a great success. I am very proud to talk about our success.
Net debt to revenue has declined to 53%, a 27% improvement from the 80% projected at the time of the original 2013-14 budget. These figures are staggering in anyone’s terms. The Giles Country Liberals government has wiped off in excess of $1bn of Labor’s projected net debt since assuming office in August 2012.
Specific key factors contributing to the improved fiscal balance outcome since the original budget are increased revenues of $344m, the revised timing of the handover of the $521m Darwin Correctional Precinct and around $230m in lower operational and capital spending – restraint.
It is important to stress that the government has not increased its taxation effort, rather it is buoyant economic activity that has led to increased revenues. Overall, the achievement of a general government operating balance surplus a full three years ahead of target and a significantly reduced fiscal balance deficit and net debt position is evidence this government is fiscally responsible.
The Territory business community is responding to the economic management and policies of the Giles Country Liberals government. The Sensis Business Index is the quarterly survey that tracks business confidence in small and medium businesses in the Territory. This year’s September report reveals the Northern Territory recorded the largest increase in business confidence in Australia. Business confidence for the Northern Territory’s small and medium businesses increased to 50%. This is 33% higher than the last quarter. Nationally, the business confidence level of small and medium businesses is 28%. Ours is 50%, 22% higher than the national level of business confidence.
Above average levels of confidence were also recorded across the Territory. Small and medium businesses in Darwin are the most confident of those in capital cities. Small and medium businesses in the Northern Territory reported increases in most performance indicators: the size of their workforce, wage bill, prices and capital expenditure. As a small business owner, I am very aware of the importance economic confidence has in the sustainability of small and medium businesses, particularly when staffing represents a significant portion of costs.
Employment growth in the Northern Territory is the strongest of all states and territories. Small and medium businesses recognise the Country Liberals government is putting in place plans that support them. The government moved to help drive down the price of fuel by offering prime land for a new discount fuel stop. The government also released a draft fuel price disclosure bill for public discussion, setting out a framework for retailers in major centres to report their costs and profits to the Consumer Affairs Commissioner.
The government is cutting red tape, putting in place procurement reforms, driving land release and infrastructure developments to boost our economy and drive down the cost of living – and it is having an effect. The annual growth of Darwin’s CPI has continued to fall. In this year’s September quarter it dropped to 2.7%, continuing its steady fall from the 4.4% peak recorded in the December quarter of 2013.
The government saw a further example of the growing confidence Territorians have in it at the Casuarina by-election, which was the weekend before last. There was a massive swing to the Country Liberals, which was a huge vote of confidence in our work. Labor’s primary vote collapsed by a staggering 17 points. In the end, only 50 votes separated the major parties and, ultimately, Labor’s win was reliant on preferences from their friends, The Greens. There is still more work to do, and we look forward to working with Territorians over the next two years as we implement further policies to create jobs, release more land and help reduce the cost of living.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I move that the debate be adjourned.
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I place on the record that I took up the Leader of Government Business’s challenge. The Chief Minister brought the TAFR to the House and the Leader of Government Business gave me two days to prepare. I would like the House to know that I am prepared. I am very much looking forward to responding and providing analysis through filling in the gaps of the Treasurer’s statement.
Madam Speaker, it is a little disappointing but I will accept the Leader of Government Business’s challenge in, I believe, the next sittings in November.
Mr ELFERINK: The preparation of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is noted by the government. We congratulate him for his, I presume, work in this area. See? You could do it.
Debate adjourned.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Recreational Fishing in the NT
Recreational Fishing in the NT
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, recreational fishing is an important part of the Northern Territory lifestyle. It is a major tourism drawcard and a growing contributor to the Territory’s economy.
In the August sittings this year, during my reply to the Chief Minister’s midterm statement, I briefly touched on the progress and projects achieved to date in relation to my portfolios, including as the Fisheries minister.
As we all know, fishing is near and dear to the hearts of many Territorians. It is an integral part of the Top End lifestyle and brings many economic benefits to the Territory in the form of tourism, jobs and commerce. Indeed, for some it is far more than just a hobby or pastime. You might say it borders on obsession or even a religion.
Today I provide the Assembly with a progress report on the Northern Territory government’s achievements in support of growing and enhancing the Territory’s recreational fishing opportunities. In recognition of the importance of fishing for Territorians, in the past two years this government has put some real runs on the board. We have closed Finke and Chambers Bays to commercial barramundi fishing; established the Recreational Fishing Advisory Committee; implemented the Recreational Fishery Development Plan; established a recreational fishing data survey program to better understand recreational fishing patterns in the Territory; reached six agreements with traditional owners around the Territory for ongoing access by fishers to waters affected by the Blue Mud Bay decision; and implemented a comprehensive safety and recreational fishing education program in conjunction with Marine Safety.
Today it is my pleasure to provide details on the latest move to improve and increase access to world-class recreational fishing on Darwin’s doorstep. The Northern Territory government has removed the seasonal closure for recreational fishing on the Mary River. From tomorrow, recreational fishers will be able to fish year-round at the iconic Shady Camp barrage and along the Mary River. The Amateur Fishermen’s Association of the NT, the Recreational Fishing Advisory Committee (RFAC) and the Barramundi Fishery Advisory Committee were consulted and all wholeheartedly support this move.
In the 1980s a permanent barramundi fishing closure in the Mary River system was introduced for commercial operators, and a seasonal closure in the Mary River system was introduced for recreational fishers. This was in response to a decline in barramundi stocks. However, in 2012 the Country Liberals government closed Chambers and Finke Bays to commercial barramundi fishing, effectively removing any impact on barramundi stocks from the commercial fishery in the Mary River area.
The combination of good Wet Seasons and improved management changes has allowed the barramundi stock to recover to extremely healthy levels in the Mary River catchment. The Mary River is now an enormously healthy and very lightly fished area, with less than 5% of spawning stock fished.
Public consultation has overwhelmingly supported the notion, and the Giles government will open up the Mary River for recreational barramundi fishing all year round. The Mary River is an iconic barramundi fishery, and opening it for year-round fishing means anglers will be able to wet a line, regardless of the date.
As the popular saying goes, ‘That is not all’. The $2.5m project to upgrade two critical barrages on the Mary River near Shady Camp to reduce saltwater intrusion onto the wetlands and valuable pastoral land will be completed by early November. The capital works program will combat the saltwater intrusion near Shady Camp through the upgrade of these two critical barrages on the Mary. The floodplains around the Mary River contain some of the most productive areas of biodiversity in Australia. It has wetland conservation values of international standards, is recognised as a site of biodiversity conservation significance and has important cultural values.
Following trials in 2013, new engineering designs have been used to construct the barrages which will assist in the short term to reduce the speed of saltwater intrusion in the lower Mary River floodplains upstream of the main Shady Camp barrage.
The new designs will see rock armoured barrages will low rock-lined spillways constructed to the same height as surrounding floodplains. This will allow for better interconnectivity between the river and floodplains, which will facilitate fish migration in the system and allow a more cost-effective utilisation of the annual repair and maintenance program. Delivery of this capital works program will work to improve the short-term management of the risk of saltwater intrusion and help protect significant breeding sites for vast populations of water birds in the Northern Territory, including magpie geese, protecting major breeding areas for fish species and freshwater pastures for cattle stock.
Work on our commitment to establish new self-launch boat ramps is also in progress. The government committed $4.5m for recreational fishing infrastructure. Advice was sought from the Recreational Fishing Advisory Committee on the best expenditure of this money so recreational fishers would get the biggest and best bang for these bucks.
There were many competing projects, but Dundee was chosen as a priority. Options are currently under consideration to maximise outcomes for this $4.5m commitment. A further $50 000 is committed in 2014 for a study on future boat ramp requirements in the Darwin metropolitan area.
For a long time the Territory has been a celebrated fishing destination in Australia. However, the combination of a growing Territory population, incredible advances in fishing technology and increased fishing tourism has seen our fisheries come under great pressure. This has made the task of balancing how we manage and use our fisheries more difficult. Balancing competing uses and differing views on the best use of our fish stocks can be a difficult task. This is why the NT government is developing a resource-sharing framework which will enable evidenced-based analysis to be applied to resolve access and resource attribution issues, as well as give industry the certainty it needs to invest with confidence.
This new policy framework will guide how fishery allocation decisions are made in the future. This is a significant piece of work at a national level and underscores our commitment to getting the balance right. A stakeholder-based working group has prepared a draft framework that has undergone public consultation. I am currently considering the group’s final report.
One of the most important issues for fishing is access. This government is working hard to achieve win/win outcomes for traditional owners and recreational fishers through the Blue Mud Bay negotiation process.
In order to honour the decision made by the High Court of Australia, negotiations are under way with many community leaders to secure outcomes that allow permit-free access to as much of the Territory coastline as possible.
Agreements reached to date provide anglers with access to the vast majority of waters around Darwin as well as regional hotspots such as Borroloola and Nhulunbuy. In partnership with traditional owners, my department produced a recreational fishing code of conduct and information brochures for the Daly and McArthur Rivers. To date, six agreements have been reached and the Northern Territory government is committed to providing traditional owners from all areas the opportunity to negotiate an agreement with government.
The department commenced a 12-month recreational fishing survey in the greater Darwin area in December 2013. This survey involves face-to-face interviews at selected boat ramps between the Adelaide River mouth and Dundee. During the first six months of data collection, interviewers spent a combined total of 382 days at boat ramps and collected information from nearly 1000 individual fishing parties.
The primary focus of the survey was to collect data on catch, effort and participation rates in recreational fishing. Interviewers have also collected relevant biological information on some socially important fish species, as well as information on vessel size and the level of expenditure on fishing.
At the completion of the 12-month period the data will be processed, extrapolated and analysed, and a final report produced. The information provided by these surveys will help inform future management of recreational fishing and ensure we have sustainable fish stocks for future generations of Territorians to enjoy.
In future years surveys will be conducted in other parts of the Territory. This government is committed to sustainable management and future development of recreational fishing. My department of Primary Industry and Fisheries has an ongoing fishing and boating safety awareness campaign that uses both television advertising and printed material. The fisheries Facebook site has over 2000 followers, with an average post receiving over 2000 views.
Barotrauma has been one of the stronger themes of our education campaign and a serious reduction of the number of reef fish released after capture will need to play a large part in the recovery strategy. The challenge is to influence behavioural change voluntarily. This applies with special importance to the release of fish affected by barotrauma.
Through the ongoing commitment of the Northern Territory government’s Indigenous Community Marine Ranger Program, a significant increase in fisheries compliance in remote areas is being achieved. Marine ranger groups are undertaking regular patrols across our coastline, providing valuable information on fishing activity, assisting in fisheries research, aquatic pest monitoring and removing ghost nets from our waters.
In the past 12 months marine rangers have conducted over 109 patrols. They are also conducting fisheries research functions such as the collection of the otolith, or ear bones, for age of fish, and the fish measurements. The presence of marine rangers has improved voluntarily compliance in remote areas and this will provide future benefits to fisheries and fishers.
Indigenous rangers have also been leading marine safety initiatives for Indigenous Territorians and recreational and commercial fishers, and rescued seven vessels in distress during 2012-13. These rangers are also used in Emergency Services search and rescue operations, and add another layer of security for all boat owners.
To date, over 70 marine rangers have completed a Certificate II in Fisheries Compliance. Training in technical research skills has also recently been undertaken by marine rangers that will build their capacity to participate in research programs and allow for more efficient delivery in remote areas.
A new 11.9 m fisheries research vessel, Mallarra, was commissioned in July 2014. Mallarra means manta ray, which is appropriate as the manta ray is believed by Indigenous saltwater people to be the guardian of the sea. This new vessel will play a major role in monitoring the health of our coastal reef fish stocks, as well as enabling research in the barramundi fishery, small pelagic fishery and other scientific monitoring projects. The Mallarra will be very much the guardian of the sea and our fishery.
The size and fit-out of the Mallarra means it will be able to travel further and longer than other fisheries vessels have been able to before. This will open new areas of research and investigation.
The commissioning of this new boat is another demonstration that this government is committed to the sustainable development of our fisheries. The Mallarra will be based at Cullen Bay Marina, and is a welcome addition to the government’s fisheries fleet of six vessels.
Under Framing the Future, this government’s blueprint for the development of the Northern Territory, our Confident Culture vision focuses on a healthy, active and enjoyable lifestyle, taking advantage of the unique features the Territory offers. Nothing could be considered more unique and truly Territorian than the passion and commitment of chasing the illusive metre barra on one of our iconic river systems, loading the family into the boat for the day on the Darwin Harbour or just wetting a line at the Nightcliff jetty.
As Territorians we have a natural affinity with our land and waterways. Fishing is part of our culture and identity. We are a population of people who maintain a strong connection with our natural environment. The Territory is a place where some secret fishing spots are sacred and above all else. Lures are as much hard bait as they are objects of beauty and art. In local slang a tinny is a boat, a shady lady is a big female barra caught from Shady Camp on the Mary River, a wet line is a good line and getting a snag on your favourite lure can ruin your entire day. Barramundi is the greatest fish ever to swim and if you have caught a metery, you are a member of a club so exclusive that some Territorians have tattoos to prove it.
The Northern Territory government is proud of the advances we have made to recreational fishing opportunities. We are determined to protect this industry and pastime for future generations. We will build the necessary infrastructure, and support our department of Fisheries in protecting our fish.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of this statement – and also wet a line as soon as possible.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this statement to the House. No doubt those fisheries are an important resource for the Territory, both for our economy and the great lifestyle we all enjoy. As it has been for many thousands of years, fishing and the management of fishery resources continues to be a central and important part of the history, culture and day-to-day life of many Indigenous Territorians.
In 2010 it is estimated more than 35 000 Territory residents and 54 000 visitors fished in the Territory, spending at least $80m in that year alone on recreational fishing and fishing tours.
Most recently, AFANT has noted that recreational fishers spend an average of $1500 per year on fishing goods and services in the Northern Territory, the highest rate in the country. Yearly, $22m is spent on guided fishing in the Northern Territory, and there is direct expenditure on recreational fishing of some $100m per year. A total of 70% of recreational fishing occurs in our regional areas: King Ash Bay on the McArthur River; the Daly River; the Roper River; Dundee Beach; and the Mary River. This sustains so many of our small businesses in those areas. We saw expanding recreational fishing opportunities developed in our time in government in places like Maningrida and on the Gove peninsula. Of course, fishing continues to grow as a pastime, as well as a tourism activity, as more and more people come to enjoy our well-managed fishing resources.
I acknowledge again the importance of fishing to Indigenous Territorians, with much of that fishing activity occurring outside our main centres, and likely uncaptured in the fishing data I have just outlined. Much of the fishing activity of Indigenous Territorians is much more than a pastime; it is about subsistence and is a central part of culture, including links to ceremony and religious belief.
It is a political truism in the Territory that any government that takes its eye off the ball in its support for the fisheries sector or oversees the degradation of our fishing resources, does so at its peril.
I note in his statement the minister has highlighted the implementation of the Recreational Fishery Development Plan as an achievement of the current CLP government. This morning in Question Time the minister said our previous Labor government did nothing and made no decisions regarding fishing during its time in government. Anyone with any history in the NT knows that is total rubbish, and it reflects very sadly on our minister.
If the minister cares, he can type in the words ‘Northern Territory Recreational Fishing Development Plan’ into Google and he will come to that document on the Northern Territory Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries website. Here it is: the Recreational Fishing Development Plan 2012 – 2022, a proud product of the previous Labor government supporting a sustainable fishery and our great Territory lifestyle.
I will provide a brief chronology to correct the public record and the minister’s statement:
- 15 March 2012
The Department of Resources … reminds anglers they have until 11 April to provide comment on the recently released Draft Development Plan for Recreational Fishing.
Minister for Fisheries, Kon Vatskalis announced the development plan for recreational fishing at the AFANT AGM on the weekend.
I will go on because there was not a lot of fanfare from the government, unfortunately:
- The Recreational Fishing Development Plan was endorsed by the NT Government …
The current government:
- … for adoption in October 2012, with a focus on future sustainable management, improved data collection, ensuring effective catch controls, access and infrastructure requirements, industry development, resource sharing and improving community stewardship of fisheries resources. One of its key objectives is to ensure that recreational fishers adopt greater responsibility for the management of aquatic resources and the development of recreational fishing.
In the former Labor government we swung our support behind recreational fishing and fishers, and we had no greater champion than the former minister, Kon Vatskalis. We are proud of our achievements in ensuring a sustainable fishery, protecting the rivers, streams and marine environment that sustain our fishers and fisheries, and our investments in better boat ramps and other assets like fishing jetties to improve access to our fisheries.
The Recreational Fishing Development Plan provided a great outline of both the values we need to protect and key strategic issues facing recreational fishing in the Northern Territory.
I was very concerned, once again, about the minister’s comments in this House, placing on the public record and telling Territorians – and I quote from an answer in Question Time today to Mr Higgins’ question to the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries:
What did the former Labor government do for the fisheries sector during its 11 years of government?
Then with intonation:
- They did nothing. If I talk to fisheries stakeholders across the Territory, they will be critical of the former government for one main reason: they did nothing and made no decisions around the fisheries of the Northern Territory. They have left all the hard decisions because they were too afraid of upsetting people; they were stuck in a state of fear and would not do anything. It is simple and true.
I can remember the amount of work done, participating as the minister for Construction, and Lands and Planning, having the privilege of working with minister Vatskalis. On the public record, I will give a brief synopsis of some of the things we did, as opposed to Territorians being told Labor did nothing.
We completed a $4m upgrade of the Palmerston boat ramp including a pontoon, toilets, improved lighting and more parking – a land-based fishing jetty that has been built so even families without a boat can enjoy a day out fishing.
Labor delivered the most comprehensive upgrades to boat ramps across the Territory: Saltwater Arm boat ramp and car park; Corroboree Billabong boat ramp and toilets; King Ash Bay boat ramp extension; Milne Inlet boat ramp resurface; Adelaide River car park, wash down and toilets; Nhulunbuy mud wharf boat ramp upgrade; Leaders Creek boat ramp upgrade; Buffalo Creek boat ramp extension; Hardy’s Lagoon new boat ramp and car park; McKenzie Arm sealed drop-offs at both ends of the ramp; Middle Arm boat ramp extension and resurface; fixed the Nightcliff jetty – I remember that, it was a huge job and a popular spot for anglers.
The previous Labor government upgraded the Point Stuart Road for access to the coast, sealed the access to Corroboree Billabong off the Arnhem Highway and upgraded the road to Dundee Beach.
The previous Labor government closed the Finniss River and Bynoe Harbour to commercial barramundi fishing and bought licences back. We commenced the buyback of another three barramundi licences to create commercial barramundi fishery closures, creating an uninterrupted closure from Cape Hotham near Adelaide River mouth to the existing Finniss River closure. We also closed those areas fished by anglers in Chambers and Finke Bays to commercial barramundi fishing.
The previous Labor government protected the Daly River and made it a point it would never dam it, unlike the Country Liberal Party.
The previous Labor government invested in the clearing up of Mount Todd Mine and the site to protect our rivers – an environmental disaster and legacy mine.
The previous Labor government ensured our fisheries are the best managed and healthiest in the world. We ensured our barramundi stocks are sustainable and healthy, which is why it introduced an increase in the limit from two to three barramundi for the Mary River management area near Shady Camp. The previous Labor government rejected calls for wide-scale bans on fishing around the coastline because it was simply not needed. That was a good opportunity to correct the record and set it straight.
Let us return to the minister’s statement because we know this government is inclined to dwell on political fixes in decision-making rather than sound science-based decision-making. That was witnessed in the Mataranka allocations, which were overseen by the same minister. I will quote from the Amateur Fishermen’s Association of the NT Inc’s document titled ‘Your rivers at risk Mataranka – the Tindall fact sheet’:
- The Amateur Fishermen’s Association of the NT … has real and serious concerns regarding the Northern Territory Government’s reckless approach to water management and allocation.
The NT Government has discarded decades of gains in improving public confidence and participation in scientific based water planning and has abandoned nationally agreed best practice water allocation and management.
AFANT calls for an immediate halt in any further water allocations and call on the government to re-establish the formal water planning process consistent with the Northern Territory’s National Water Initiative commitments and best practice water planning.
I remind the House that AFANT was so concerned at the time it called for an immediate halt to any further water allocations and to re-establish water planning processes consistent with the National Water Initiative.
Again I call on the government to ensure appropriate resourcing and solid-based research and monitoring to properly inform future fisheries management decisions.
Today we had news of the end of the long-standing seasonal closure at the Mary River, a change based on science and a conclusion that this restriction can now be relaxed. However, I also call on the government to ensure that fishing activity, as well as local environmental conditions, continue to be properly monitored to ensure the continued health of those fish stocks.
We also know that the lower Mary River catchment is a very important area of barramundi spawning and the growth of juvenile fish in a nursery situation. I urge the government to continue its work of better understanding fish populations, flood dynamics and saltwater intrusion on the lower Mary River floodplain to ensure the continued health of those important fish populations.
The minister bragged in his statement about the closure by the CLP government of both Chambers and Finke Bays to commercial barramundi fishing. We understand this was a popular decision among recreational fishers but the change has to be well managed.
This change left commercial barramundi fishers bewildered and uncertain about the long-term wellbeing of their industry under the CLP government. It left many unanswered questions about the future of the wild-caught barramundi fishery in the Northern Territory. This commercial industry, which includes wild-catch fish and aquaculture, contributes 12.5% of the production value of primary industries in the Northern Territory. The fin fish sector on its own realised $25.7m in production value in 2011-12. That decision-making was rammed through and was not well managed. We look forward to an improved consultative approach to decisions affecting the lives and interests of all Territorians.
Listening to a continual litany of poor CLP decisions, we have to raise the issue and hold this government to account. Mention of the commercial fishers highlights the narrow focus of this statement. If we are talking about fisheries as a whole we also need to consider the needs and impacts of commercial fishers. There was scant mention in the statement or commitment from the minister on how he will balance those interests.
What of the mud crab fishery, with wild catch crustacean production estimated at $8.2m in 2011-12? There was no mention of that resource in this statement.
The minister said his agency is working on a resource sharing framework which will enable evidenced analysis to resolve access and resource attribution issues. It sounds like something Vladimir Putin would say. Good luck to our conscientious public servants working on that document. I fear their work may be in vain, given both the recent and past track record of CLP decision-making.
Similarly, the word ‘environment’ was mentioned once in the context of the importance of the environment to Territorians. There was no serious mention of steps being taken to protect our environment that nurtures and sustains our fisheries resource. This is the balance we talk about on this side of the House.
What about the concerns of AFANT, traditional owners and the broader community? What of AFANT’s concerns expressed to the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia about development of isolated port infrastructure on greenfield sites in the greater Darwin region – aka Glyde Point – that will have significant impact on mangrove habitat, recreational fishing and lifestyle values in the greater Darwin region?
There are concerns about plans for dams. The large Wet Season flows are an essential part of the environment that require the estuary ecosystems of the Top End that drive the productivity and interconnectivity of the entire river system.
I draw the minister’s attention to the AFANT Green Paper Submission to Developing Northern Australia. I will not read it but I will quote some of the paragraph headings, ‘To dam or damn NT rivers’ and ‘Water running out to sea is not wasted.’ That submission is a very interesting read. More headings are: ‘The impact of dam construction on fisheries and river health’ – talking about a special ecosystem of northern Australia; ‘Dams are a barrier to migratory species’; ‘Direct impact on fisheries production and recruitment’; ‘Impact on connectivity of river systems’; ‘Sediment and nutrient transfer’; and ‘Increased resource conflicts and sharing’. These are very important paragraphs that spell out AFANT’s concerns and, once again, reassure all Territorians there needs to be a very healthy balance.
Other community concerns have been raised. The Territory opposition will raise them in responding to the minister’s statement. Spills out of Mount Todd mine potentially affect the Daly River, and there is a need for precautionary arrangements to eliminate or minimise those risks. There are legacy mines, such as Redbank, affecting fish populations in adjacent streams across the Territory. There is Bing Bong iron ore dust affecting marine life on that coastal estuary, an issue brought to the attention of Territorians by the Environment Centre of the Northern Territory, defunded by the CLP. This was in response to the concerns of local traditional owners and the gulf country community, and forced a public statement from the Environmental Protection Authority confirming issues of concern.
There were issues raised by tradition owners and the local community regarding the McArthur River Mine and concerns about their local fish resources. I mention briefly the incredible work traditional owners are doing in raising the consciousness of the community, while also working in partnership with the McArthur River Mine. I give a special mention to a great mate of mine, Keith Rory. I have spoken to Keith on a number of occasions. He is one of the spokespeople in the group driving this education and awareness campaign, a very rational and respectful campaign to engage McArthur River Mining. Keith is emerging as a recognised and acknowledged Indigenous leader in that area and has put together some very good resolutions.
I am fortunate the McArthur River Mine has offered me another briefing. I will be able to talk to them next week. I will be going over the material I have put to this House in the last couple of weeks – the adjournment I made, the letters from constituents – trying to encourage working together to deliver the best results. It is great to see Keith as one of those new leaders emerging in this very important area.
AFANT has also expressed concerns about a number of high readings of lead and other metals in fish and shellfish across the Borroloola gulf region, not just on the mine site. That is what we need to work together on resolving.
AFANT also noted in comments on 23 October that the Department of Mines and Energy has come under focus in the report of the independent mine monitor. It highlighted performance as the regulator and manager of mine sites and operations. I encourage the minister’s departments to work together. I am also calling on the Minister for Health, as we need to take the next step in education and awareness of the community about heavy metal contamination and how it relates to the environment, fish stocks and other edible resources from that area. It is a voice of dissent, but it is a voice interested in resolutions.
The statement ended on a happy note: the continuing support of this government to the marine ranger group. The Territory opposition acknowledges that, but it was not always that way. Traditional owners across the Northern Territory have not forgotten the resistance of the former CLP government to their establishment. Previous CLP administrations resisting land claims, protesting native title rights to fish stocks and being aghast at the notion of local community ranger groups having more say and active involvement in the management of fishing resources resounds in the minds and memories of traditional owners across the Northern Territory.
Thankfully, Labor took note of those concerns and that information both in the NT and federally. They broke through that resistance and supported the development of marine ranger groups and their work in fisheries management. It is good to see the minister acknowledging that in the statement. We are proud of that support and pleased the CLP has taken the blinkers off and can now see the value of supporting these groups. They deserve your support, minister, and that of the government.
The question remains: what does the CLP expect from these groups in relation to their continued support? Will they be kept on a short leash? Will it be support dependent on support for the CLP? Thinking across these issues and the concerns of Indigenous Territorians and other fishers, will the minister see and grasp this great opportunity for working together for all Territorians across the Territory?
The minister is challenged with that great opportunity of the solution to the Blue Mud Bay decision. There was a missed opportunity in this statement to update Territorians on fishing access arrangements following the Blue Mud Bay decision. We know the government has until next month to conclude negotiations with the Northern Land Council and settle access conditions. We know there is still work to be done to conclude an access deal with the Tiwi Land Council, especially access to the northern coast of the Tiwi Islands.
What deals are being done behind closed doors to secure access to areas where long-term recreational fishing access remains unresolved? Will access in any of these areas require permits? Is it true that access to the north coast of the Tiwi Islands is likely to be limited to commercial fishing tours? Minister, we await an update on the conclusion of those negotiations and more detail on the deals being made to secure fishing access.
It is good to finish on an important point, reflecting on the intergenerational issues so our children and their children will also be able to enjoy high-quality fishing experiences in the Territory. It is not just about taking or resource utilisation, it is about sustainable fishing and appreciation of the long-term value of a quality fishery resource. It is about understanding the cultural significance of fish and fishing to many Territorians. It is about good science underpinning sound decisions, a healthy environment sustaining fish populations and respectful support and engagement with all the key interest groups.
I will conclude with a concern that has been raised with me and the Territory opposition, which is the balance between the commercial sector – a very important sector in the Northern Territory – and our recreational fishing sector. There is great concern about a movement from the traditional line and trap commercial methods of fishing to the trawlers. The concern that has been conveyed to me is about the protection and sustainability of the resource that will impact on both sectors, commercial and recreation. I have taken great interest in talking to professional fisherman about the trawler operations using nets and drags that will impact significantly on coral reefs.
There is a new fishing area being explored. Minister, your department is involved in all of this work which relates to the Timor Box. I urge you, once again, to take a great interest in this aspect of sustainability. It would be good for you to update the House on what is happening in this move from the traditional line and trap, the aggregation of the commercial licences, and the utilisation of these larger vessels and large-scale fishing operations using trawlers.
The Northern Territory is in a very unique position in relation to the development of northern Australia. It is not only about our recreational fishers, it is also about our commercial fishers. It is, most importantly, acknowledging and understanding in best-practice science, the unique nature of the ecology and the biodiversity of northern Australia.
I have made a point to talk about the AFANT concerns around damming our wild free-flowing rivers – some of the last wild free-flowing rivers on this continent. I have raised those issues with good faith on behalf of recreational fishers. Their association has gone to great lengths to try to communicate that important point to the CLP government. It would be a great shame if we see a parallel of this rush to cash grab with infrastructure that is not based on best-practice science and sustainability, recognising the unique ecology, environment and biodiversity we all share in northern Australia.
Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to put these points forward in debate tonight.
Mrs FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I support the minister’s statement. Fishing is a quintessential part of the Territory lifestyle and something I spoke about in my maiden speech in this House over two years ago. It was part of my commitment to the people of Drysdale and Territorians that, as a born and bred Territorian, I would protect our unique Territory lifestyle and work out ways to enhance that lifestyle well into the future.
I grew up fishing with my family; it is something my dad and many of my family love to do. My husband does not love it all that much. That is okay, I am too busy to be fishing as much as I used to. If you are not a Territorian who enjoys fishing I can almost guarantee you know someone who does.
Palmerston has developed over those years. I have lived in Palmerston my whole life and have watched it grow. It is not the frontier town it used to be. It is now a large and developing city. That has some positive benefits but also presents limitations to sectors of our Palmerston community. It is my commitment and belief that all Territorians should have access to lifestyle-enhancing and recreational activities that go hand-in-hand with our beautiful lifestyle in the Territory.
Fishing should not be limited to those who can afford boats. We see many boats in the Territory. The minister’s departmental figures will show these days the average boat length is 6 m when it used to be 3 m or 4 m. Many people have the ability to access boats, but not all people. People who do not have that opportunity should be afforded the opportunity to enjoy fishing.
We have excellent boat ramp facilities in the Darwin area and more and more fishing locations and opportunities are being opened up and explored by our government. I thank the minister for that.
Our jetties keep getting better. At Palmerston boat ramp we have just seen two shade structures installed over the jetty. That is great. Thanks to the minister, who supported mine and the member for Blain’s push for that. We know many Palmerston families love going to the Palmerston boat ramp to fish, and now they can do so in full shade, fishing on the low and high tides. That is fantastic. I have been there when fishos have been on the boat ramp. They think it is brilliant and asked why we did not put shade over the whole thing. Minister, maybe we could talk about that next budget round.
Fishing is not only a great recreational activity and family pastime, it is part of our community and lifestyle. It needs to be regulated, where necessary, in bag limits and responding to the science. The minister has the important and difficult job of balancing those regulatory requirements with the freedom and ability for all Territorians to enjoy one of the pastimes nearest and dearest to them.
I am speaking passionately about this. The main reason I wanted to speak tonight is because I have reached the point where I want to publicly talking about a program I am working hard on establishing in Palmerston – the neighbourhood fishing program. This idea came to me after looking at a highly successful and very inspirational program run in Texas in the United States with the same name. If you are interested, google ‘neighbourhood fishing program in Texas’ and I am sure it will come up.
The theory behind that program is that communities are becoming increasingly urbanised – as I mentioned, Palmerston is now sprawling and very large, which makes it more difficult for all Territorians to enjoy a Territory lifestyle. That comes with certain limitations, and people in urban Palmerston may not have a boat or a way to get to the Palmerston boat ramp. I do not know of any bus service that goes to the Palmerston boat ramp, and I am not really sure it is a viable route. However, that does not mean people who want to fish should not enjoy it. Many people in my electorate do not have cars or only have one car and rely on public transport so it is not as easy as saying, ‘We will go to Palmerston jetty and drop a line’. We have to be mindful to provide opportunities for Territorians to enjoy our unique Territory lifestyle. The neighbourhood fishing program would change that. It would make fishing a lot easier, more convenient and, of course, closer to home.
In Texas they have city lakes throughout the state stocked throughout the year with fingerlings so the community can drop a line. People bring chairs, blankets and barbecues. It is wonderful. The YouTube video on the Texas Department of Parks and Wildlife website is fantastic. It gives you goose bumps to see what something as simple as putting fish in a lake can do to bring a community together.
I have the same vision for Palmerston. It could be extended in the Northern Territory but I will be working on it for Palmerston in the first instance. I am already imagining the barbecue areas and Sunday afternoons where people are coming out of their homes and enjoying what it is to be outside and part of a community again.
As I said in my maiden speech, I want to restore some of the moral health of our community, or that sense of community. I work very hard as a local member. I am very focused and purposeful at the grassroots level. I am very passionate and believe we need to start very purposefully and actively working to bring communities together.
Communities are so powerful when they are fighting together as one. I will do everything I can to leave that legacy. When I look back on my time serving Territorians and reflect on benchmarks that I raised in my maiden speech, like this, I want to be able to put a tick next to it and know I worked hard every day to try to bring a sense of community back to Palmerston.
In my view, the pilot of the neighbourhood fishing program should be at Durack Heights, Sanctuary Lakes and Marlow Lagoon. They are the obvious locations in Palmerston. It means residents can catch the bus or walk there and go after school. These locations are very easy to get to and provide an opportunity for sustainable recreation in people’s back yards.
I use the word ‘sustainable’ very purposefully. This is not just about recreation and the act of fishing. It teaches young people and everyday Territorians so many more skills, including sustainability, biodiversity and those sorts of things. It has a broader purpose than its immediate and most apparent one of recreation.
I believe local businesses would be very responsive to this. I know Frenchy, who has the Tackle Box at Durack Shell Service Station, would be very happy to have the extra business. You can stop at Frenchy’s place then go to Durack Lakes to spend the afternoon fishing.
I also imagine the Palmerston Game Fishing Club would be very responsive to this. It has a fantastic and energetic junior’s program and this would fall into line with many of the club’s core values.
I will be knocking on the door of my good friend Geoff Smith, who is the CEO of CIC Australia, which is developing Durack Heights. It has already made a tremendous commitment to the Palmerston community. The Charles Darwin University lake is perfectly situated between Durack, Charles Darwin University and Durack Heights. That lake could very quickly be populated with fish. CIC Australia is developing, with the City of Palmerston, a community centre right on that lake. I am already seeing huge synergies with the community space. That is just to name a few.
The Texas program is designed to recruit new anglers and get more people into fishing. It is about the perfect outdoor experience with fishing at its centre. It sounds very clichd but I will say it anyway, if you teach a child to fish you can feed them for a lifetime. These are fundamental Territory skills.
I am not just looking at skills development, education and the unique Territory lifestyle; I have spoken to the minister for Parks and Wildlife before about protecting our Territory culture. Over time, if we do not foster our cultures, they can very easily disappear. It is not just about people from other nations coming into the Territory and maintaining their sense of culture from their home nation, it is about Territorians maintaining their culture as well. As we change and grow that culture – challenge is the wrong word, but if we are not there protecting what it is to be a Territorian, it can very easily be lost in growth and development.
My vision is for a sustainable, desirable species to be introduced in various sizes into the selected waterways. In Texas they use catfish. I do not know why they love catfish, all I know is Territorians do not. I do not suggest we do that. Instead, we should use something a little more appropriate like barramundi, tarpon or saratoga. It is great fishing, some of it is great eating and others are just for recreation and sport.
There are opportunities for schools to get involved, as well as for school excursions. Parents can give children opportunities they might not otherwise have. All those fathers who do not have boats can take their sons and daughters there and be just as excellent fathers as ones with boats. It opens up opportunities and puts everyone on an equal footing to be able to enjoy our lifestyle, live the life we love to live and that we want young people in the Territory to grow up living.
I have already seen kids fishing at Sanctuary Lakes, which warms my heart. A couple of weeks ago I saw a couple of kids sitting on the side of the lake catching fish with a little piece of bread and a tiny hook and dropping them back in. I could not resist speaking to them; I asked them why they were doing it. They said it was fun, it was a nice afternoon and they loved doing it. It blew me away. I was so heartened, proud and pleased to see those young people, who would have been all of eight or nine years old. They were not sitting inside on a weekend playing the PlayStation, but were out enjoying our environment. That, to me, is what it is all about.
A lot of work needs to be done on sustainability and social and environmental impacts. However, I do not want to dwell on and talk about why we cannot do it. I want to focus on why we can and work out how we can.
I know the minister will be excited by this. Minister, if you are not excited, get on board, we will take this ride together. I have spent a lot of my time in the last two years banging on the Minister for Health’s door about Palmerston hospital. That is well and truly under way now, so I can pull back a bit from that. I have been banging on the Minister for Transport’s door about Tiger Brennan Drive, and I can relax a bit about that too; I know it is all going well. They are two of my major issues which I feel I can step away from.
Minister for Fisheries, you are my next target. Congratulations! We will go on a journey together. Seriously though, you are doing a fantastic job. You have already shown a commitment to Palmerston. I want us to walk this journey and work out how we can establish a neighbourhood fishing program to show Palmerston people how serious we are about our commitment to them and our Territory lifestyle.
Madam Speaker, I commend the statement to the House.
Debate adjourned.
TABLED PAPER
Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Tribunal
Annual Report 2013-14
Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Tribunal
Annual Report 2013-14
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I present to the House the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Tribunal Annual Report 2013-14. This is not a long annual report. Whilst most of the work is done by the Department of Health the tribunal rests under the Department of the Attorney-General.
There are a couple of things to note in the report, namely the numbers that appear on page 9. The total number of applications received and hearings conducted by the tribunal is 435, which in many respects demonstrates the tragedy of alcohol in our community. That led to 208 residential treatment orders being ordered by the tribunal, as well as a number of community treatment orders and release orders also being made.
This report demonstrates that alcohol continues to be a problem in the community. However, as the Northern Territory government, we have, in recent times, been rolling out policies that have dramatically reduced the effects of alcohol in the community. This is evidenced by reductions in crime across the Northern Territory, particularly where we have seen the operations of the TBLs. The TBLs complement the Alcohol Protection Orders we have issued and the works of mandatory alcohol treatment.
This is all part of the government’s construct to make the drinker responsible for their conduct, not the community responsible for the drinker’s conduct, which was the policy of the former Labor government. We are proud of the achievements we have made in this area. It has set the Northern Territory government well along the path to reduce crime in our community. The reduction in property crime, of course, has well exceeded targets and, frankly, exceeded our expectations. Moreover, even now we are seeing reductions of personal crime which are nothing shy of astonishing. In the Tennant Creek area since the beginning of the year, we have seen a two-thirds reduction in the crime reported in that community.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, I lay on the table this annual report and encourage all members to read it, in light of all of the other improvements we have made in alcohol policy in the Northern Territory.
TABLED PAPER
First Annual Report of the Department of Community Services
Mrs PRICE (Community Services): Madam Speaker, it gives me pleasure to table the first annual report for the Department of Community Services which was formed in September 2013. This report showcases the achievements made by my department in the development of remote regional communities across the Territory in 2013-14.
Let me talk about the diversity of functions within the department and how we are working across these functions with our partners to unlock the potential of remote and regional Northern Territory. My department is committed to making a difference to regional and remote Northern Territory through its functions and initiatives. My department works to support a thriving economy and safe and secure communities by coordinating strategic service delivery and policy programs in a structured way.
My department is responsible for securing government infrastructure through long-term leases. Government can now be assured it will not be alienated from this infrastructure, with 788 leases secured to date. This team is also working towards mainstreaming land administration through our $7m Cadastral survey program.
Significantly, my department hosted the delegation of ministers from Sarawak to learn from the way we are dealing with the development of communally titled land.
My department is making a real difference in homelands and outstations, particularly with the introduction and roll-out of Homelands Extra allowance.
We are partnering with 37 service providers to deliver services to over 500 homelands. We all know essential services are in a critical condition in many communities. My department supports infrastructure development activities that stimulate economic growth and job creation while ensuring adequate essential services capacity. A total of 178 essential service operators were employed through Indigenous Essential Services in 2013-14.
My department leads a whole-of-government approach to coordinate and deliver services to remote communities, working with the Australian government to deliver agreed outcomes under several national partnership agreements.
Interpreting and Translating Services NT continues to provide a critical service and has now introduced protocols for interpreters working in the legal field, and standards for lawyers and judges working with interpreters.
I am proud of the work my department is doing in community engagement. The First Circles initiative is a new model of engagement that identifies mentors and supports emerging leaders in remote communities.
The Men’s Policy Unit is unique to the Territory. There is no equivalent men’s policy unit or function in any other state or territory in Australia. This makes the Northern Territory the first jurisdiction in Australia to create a male-specific policy unit.
The Office of Women’s Advancement is engaging with women across the Territory, nationally and internationally to develop and deliver programs, policies and activities to support gender equality, and a safe and supportive environment, and to encourage women to reach their full potential in the workplace.
Madam Speaker, I acknowledge and thank the Chief Executive of this department, Mike Chiodo, and his team for their commitment to improving the social and financial wellbeing of Territorians in regional and remote communities through these programs. My department is well positioned to build on these achievements in 2014-15 and further improve delivery of our services and programs, and support the development of remote and regional Northern Territory into the future.
TABLED PAPER
Environment Protection (Beverage Containers
and Plastic Bags) Act 2011 Annual Report
Environment Protection (Beverage Containers
and Plastic Bags) Act 2011 Annual Report
Mr CHANDLER (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table the Environment Protection (Beverage Containers and Plastic Bags) Act 2011 annual report for 2013-14. The Environment Protection (Beverage Containers and Plastic Bags) Act 2011 was passed in the Legislative Assembly in February 2011. It provides the legal framework for the container deposit legislation and regulation of single-use lightweight non-biodegradable plastic bags.
The container deposit scheme commenced in the Northern Territory in January 2012 and the plastic bag ban came into effect in September 2011. It is a requirement under section 92 of the act that I prepare a report about the administration of the act which is tabled in the Legislative Assembly.
In August 2013, all states and territories and the Commonwealth agreed to permanently exempt the container deposit scheme from the requirements of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992, resulting in the Northern Territory receiving a permanent exemption. This meant all regulated containers had to be approved under the container deposit scheme before sale in the Northern Territory.
On 14 August 2013, the container deposit scheme returned to an industry-run scheme. Over 63.8 million containers were returned to container deposit scheme coordinators during 2013-14. This resulted in an annual return rate of 41%. Collection depots paid out over $6.6m in redemptions to Territorians over the year. These results were down by approximately 5% in 2012-13. This may be due to a number of collection depots temporarily closing to regenerate or reinvigorate arrangements with coordinators following the short period the NT government was funding the scheme. During this period, access was limited in Alice Springs, Tennant Creek and Elliott. Further to this, in quarter three of 2012-13, there was an unusually high return rate as consumers were concerned about the scheme not continuing.
Seven infrastructure grants were awarded in 2013-14. They provide one-off funding for businesses and organisations to purchase equipment or infrastructure for establishing collection depots or collection points throughout the Northern Territory.
After two rounds of industry consultation in early 2014 an amendment to the act commenced on 30 June 2014. The key changes under the amended act included increasing the enforcement potential of the act, ensuring collection depots are open to the public, ensuring all CDS participants establish their own contractual arrangements and reducing the number of categories containers are split into at the collection depot level. It is expected the amendments will bring improved efficiency to the scheme and maximise community, business and environmental benefits. These will be implemented over the next 16 months.
During 2013-14, two reviews of the first two years of the act’s administration were completed: (1) review of the containers regulated under the container deposit scheme and (2) Northern Territory plastic ban review. These reports are available on the Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority website.
The plastic bag ban has also indicated some relatively positive results. Based on the Keep Australia Beautiful litter index, there has been an estimated 24% reduction in the number of lightweight plastic bags in the litter stream since the commencement of the ban. I am not convinced at this stage, given the evidence, that the plastic bag ban – part of this legislation – is improving things in the waste stream. I am talking about the amount of plastic going to our waste stream.
I intend to see what we, as a government, can do to improve the measurement of plastic. I recall the minister at the time, Karl Hampton, introduced this legislation to reduce the amount of plastic going landfill. I am unconvinced at this stage that we are meeting that target.
Again, it is not about throwing out the legislation like we did with the cash for cans, it is about finding ways to improve the legislation to meet its intent. There is nothing wrong with the intent, but I am yet to be convinced, with the evidence I have in front of me, that we are seeing a reduction in plastic into our landfill sites.
I put on the record again that the winners in this battle are the big businesses like Coles and Woollies which are charging 15c for every plastic bag people purchase when they are buying their goods and services.
We also know that more heavy duty plastics are now going to landfill because as people do not have the lightweight throwaway plastic bags, they are turning to buying more heavy duty plastic bags for their waste, whether it is to wrap a nappy in, put their potato or prawn shells in or whatever it is. That has an impact on the cost of living, as the Chief Minister said.
I want some deeper analysis, including talking to our local governments to find out what impact this legislation has had on their landfill. If it is a positive one, they will get every bit of support they need. If it is not, we need to look at ways we can improve the legislation.
MOTION
Print Paper – Environment Protection (Beverage Containers and Plastic Bags)
Act 2011 Annual Report
Print Paper – Environment Protection (Beverage Containers and Plastic Bags)
Act 2011 Annual Report
Mr CHANDLER (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to; report printed.
MOTION
Note Paper – Environment Protection (Beverage Containers and Plastic Bags)
Act 2011 Annual Report
Note Paper – Environment Protection (Beverage Containers and Plastic Bags)
Act 2011 Annual Report
Mr CHANDLER (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report and I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later time.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
TABLED PAPER
Report on Members’ Entitlements
Report on Members’ Entitlements
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I table a report on the entitlements of Assembly members in Determination No 1 of 2014 and seek leave to continue my remarks at a later date.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
TABLED PAPER
Subordinate Legislation Publications Committee Report of Ministerial Correspondence on Subordinate
Legislation and Publications
Subordinate Legislation Publications Committee Report of Ministerial Correspondence on Subordinate
Legislation and Publications
Mr BARRETT (Blain): Madam Speaker, I table the Subordinate Legislation Publications Committee Report of Ministerial Correspondence on Subordinate Legislation and Publications for 2014.
Rules, regulations and bylaws affect people in their day-to-day lives. It is, therefore, important the Assembly maintains a sufficient level of public scrutiny to ensure it keeps within the purpose and intention of the laws under which they are made and do not unduly affect people’s rights.
Since the committee last reported in November 2013 it has examined 36 pieces of subordinate legislation. As part of that scrutiny, the committee sought the advice of its independent legal counsel, Professor Ned Aughterson.
The committee subsequently wrote to responsible ministers regarding concerns it had with 10 regulations. This report places those letters on the public record and allows interested persons to see the clarifications regarding the intended operation of the regulations or undertakings to correct any errors as provided by ministers.
In addition to its examination of subordinate legislation, the committee is also responsible for monitoring the statutory reporting requirements of government entities. For example, under the Public Sector Employment and Management Act and the Financial Management Act all Northern Territory government departments are required to present annual reports and audited financial statements to the appropriate minister for tabling in the Assembly.
Independent officers such as the Auditor-General, Ombudsman and Information Commissioner, statutory authorities, government owned corporations and a number of other regulatory bodies are also required to submit annual reports, audited financial statements and inquiry reports to the Speaker or relevant minister for tabling, pursuant to their respective enabling legislation.
Of the 106 government entities the committee currently monitors, there was one instance where it was necessary for the committee to follow up an outstanding report with the minister.
On behalf of the committee, I thank ministers for their responses to the committee’s queries. However, during the current reporting period I note the timeliness of some ministerial responses has been a matter of concern to the committee. The committee provides a quality assurance role for the Assembly after subordinate legislation is made and enforced. It is, therefore, necessary that its examination be prompt. Also, standing orders require the committee to report on any significant concerns warranting an instrument’s disallowance within 12 sitting days of the instrument’s tabling. For the committee to perform the functions required by the Assembly it requires a timely response when it raises an issue.
I also acknowledge the significant contribution made by Professor Aughterson and thank him for his diligence in advising the committee. I also acknowledge the efforts and bipartisan approach of committee members in seeking to ensure a high standard of rules and regulations in the Northern Territory and compliance with the legislative reporting requirements.
MOTION
Print Paper – Subordinate Legislation Publications Committee Report of Ministerial Correspondence on Subordinate
Legislation and Publications 2014
Print Paper – Subordinate Legislation Publications Committee Report of Ministerial Correspondence on Subordinate
Legislation and Publications 2014
Mr BARRETT (Blain): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to; report printed.
TABLED PAPER
Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee Report and Answers to Questions Taken On Notice
Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee Report and Answers to Questions Taken On Notice
Mrs FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table the report of the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee on its consideration of the activities, performance, practices and financial management of the Power and Water Corporation, Territory Generation and Jacana Energy, with reference to those corporations’ Statements of Corporate Intent 2014-15. Pursuant to the committee’s terms of reference, I also table answers to questions taken on notice.
This report identifies member’s key areas of interest or concern as reflected in the lines of questioning during hearings. This year’s Government Owned Corporations Committee hearings were the first since the separation of the Power and Water Corporation into three corporations. The committee allowed two hours to hear from each of the corporations. The hearings were held separately from the Estimates Committee this year because the new corporations had not commenced at that time.
The committee’s hearings provided a valuable opportunity to hear the directions Power and Water, Territory Generation and Jacana Energy are taking following the structural separation of the Power and Water Corporation, and for members to question the chairs of the boards. I thank the three board chairs, Ken Clarke, David De Silva and Noel Faulkner, Chief Executive Officers John Baskerville, Tim Duignan and Stuart Pearce, as well as their staff for the assistance they provided the committee. I also thank members of the committee for their constructive and cooperative approach to the hearings.
MOTION
Print Paper – Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee Report
Print Paper – Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee Report
Mrs FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to; report printed.
MOTION
Note Paper – Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee Report
Note Paper – Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee Report
Mrs FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I move that the report be noted and seek leave to continue my remarks at a later time.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
TABLED PAPERS
Travel Reports – Members for Nightcliff
Travel Reports – Members for Nightcliff
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table two travel reports from the members for Nightcliff and Nelson.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
I realise it is a late hour, but nevertheless I am compelled to speak on a matter I found both irritating and annoying earlier today.
It has become a habit of the Labor Party to start amassing a list of people they will execute. They publicly name those people, both in this House and in other places. Should they ever come to power, that list now ranges across the public service. I have heard the Leader of the Opposition name a number of individuals over the last few days, and they have even put a price on what they think the hit list is worth; I think the figure of some $3m was bandied around. The public service should be beyond reach.
What impels me to talk about this matter was an allegation made by the member for Johnston, directed towards me, in relation to his wife being fired by me. I place categorically on the record that I had no involvement whatsoever or interfered in any shape or form with the termination of the employment of the member for Johnston’s wife. Whilst I might be capable of being short-tempered or even irritable in this place from time to time, I am not a spiteful human being. I resent the implication, quite frankly, from the member for Johnston. It is just not the way I operate as a minister of the Crown.
Member for Johnston, I would have preferred to deal with this matter discreetly. I asked to talk to him privately at the back of the Chamber; he has subsequently refused to speak with me, leaving no option but for me to defend my honour and the principles by which I govern in the public domain. There is no way I have involved myself with the termination of his wife or any other public servant, and I place that firmly on the record. I would have preferred not to do it in the public domain, unfortunately the member for Johnston has left me no choice with his refusal to speak to me privately about the issue …
Mr Vowles: My wife, who has a lot of time on her hands.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin, you have the call.
Mr ELFERINK: I do not, and this government does not, engage in hit lists. Clearly, should the Labor Party ever form government in this jurisdiction, it will. It shows the vast chasm between them and their style of governance with hit lists and black lists and those sorts of things, compared to this side of the House.
Mr Vowles: You are not in control of your department.
Mr ELFERINK: I can tell you the member for Johnston is simply wrong. I hear his interjections now he has ambled back into this place. I simply say to him that if he engages in repeating those allegations outside of this place – and I invite him to do so – then he will be hearing from my lawyers.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, this evening I pay tribute to the late Mr Pedro Yap, a widely-respected and distinguished Territorian. Pedro passed away on 18 September surrounded by his loving family.
Pedro was a businessman, diplomat, interpreter, philanthropist and devoted family man. He was born in East Timor in 1926, one of 13 children born to a Chinese father and a Timorese mother. Pedro was the fifth child but showed such great business acumen as a young man that his father trusted him to manage the family’s business affairs.
Pedro was well known in all sectors of the Timor community, being fluent in Portuguese, Tetum, Japanese and three Chinese languages. In recognition of his potential and community influence, the Portuguese authorities appointed Pedro as the Honorary Secretary of the Association of Commercial Agriculture and Industry in Timor.
The Yap family migrated to Darwin in 1978 to settle. Through hard work and acumen, Pedro Yap built up successful and thriving businesses. In 1979, Pedro was instrumental in establishing the NT Timor Chinese Association. In 1994, he established the NT Hakka Association. Pedro was recognised in our multicultural and business communities for his generosity, hard work and concern for others.
Above all, Pedro Yap was a family man. His loving wife, children and grandchildren were his great priority in life.
In a moving eulogy delivered in St Mary’s Cathedral on 25 September, Pedro’s son Henry summed up his father’s family devotion with these words:
- At the heart of it all was that everything my father did was for his family. His family was always number one.
Madam Speaker I hope there will be no objection if I seek leave to incorporate Pedro Yap’s eulogy into the Parliamentary Record.
Leave granted.
- In life nothing of value comes easy. It only comes through dedication, hard work and trusting your gut feeling. This was one philosophy that my father followed and impressed upon me from a young age. More often than not, he told me, your gut feeling proves to be right but if it is wrong at least you can learn from it and move on to bigger and better things.
My father would be proud to see such a great turnout of people here today not only from Darwin, the Territory and interstate but also from overseas to honour his memory. I see today people from all walks of life from all social circles and ethnic backgrounds.
That is a reflection of the man my father was, he could be having lunch with a government minister one minute and then hours later be sitting around sharing a joke with the cleaners he employed in his business.
He was a man who loved to chat and believed he was all the richer as a human being for getting to know people of all backgrounds, status and ethnicity.
Not only could he share his experiences and help people along their journey but he could immerse himself in their worlds and learn about life.
The fact that he picked up the ability to speak six languages in his lifetime with little formal or structured tuition shows that he had a great ability to listen and learn. That is a sign of great humility.
Businessman, diplomat, interpreter, philanthropist and loyal husband and devoted father, Pedro Yap certainly achieved a lot in his 89 years. And at the heart of it all was that everything my father did was for his family. His family was always No.1.
My father was born in East Timor in 1926, the fifth of 13 children, to a Chinese Hakka father from the Guandong region of mainland China, and a Timorese mother.
Schooling was limited in those days but my father showed enough aptitude to progress through his grades and be recognised by my grandfather as the leader of the family.
My paternal grandparents had come to Timor with very little, but with savvy business instincts directed dad to the path of acquiring a 50 ha coffee plantation and other business interests.
Dad and his siblings were managing the family businesses. My father took charge of running the coffee plantation and selling coffee to exporters.
Being a man of enterprise, another of his jobs was to tutor young women who wanted to learn to speak Portuguese. One of his students in the class was a shy Chinese girl called Emilia. It wasn’t long before that relationship went far beyond the classroom and Emilia soon became his wife and the mother of his children. It was to be the most fruitful partnership my father ever had. And unlike most marriages of the day, it wasn’t an arranged marriage but a bond built on love.
As well as the coffee plantation, the family also had a restaurant which my mother operated.
My father had established a high standing in the community and this was soon recognised in political circles. The fact that he was fluent in Portuguese, three Chinese languages, Tetum and Japanese and that he had established a great rapport among people from all walks of life was considered an asset by those in power.
He became a key liaison man with the Chinese and Timorese communities and was appointed the Honorary Secretary of Association of Commercial Agriculture and Industry of Timor, the authoritative Portuguese business regulator in Timor.
He also became Secretary to Republic of China (Taiwan) Chinese consul in Timor, managing Chinese interests in East Timor.
In 1969 he was elected by the Kuomintang community as the East Timorese/Chinese representative in the Republic of China (Taiwan) parliament for 12 months. There he met representatives of governments of many political persuasions from all over the world and soon established key connections to other Hakka communities.
He was also the East Timor spokesperson in Macau, then a Portuguese territory, for the purposes of settling Timorese refugees in Macau.
He became very friendly with the governor in Macau who suggested a new position for my father as a diplomat in Portugal.
We were there for one year when a family member suggested we migrate to the land Down Under. My Darwin uncle asked us: ‘What are you doing in Portugal? Come to Australia. Australia is Heaven!’
Our application to migrate to Australia was successful and in 1978 we found ourselves in Darwin, a city rebuilding after the devastation of Cyclone Tracy.
Suddenly my father was immersed again in a country with a completely different language and culture. It meant Pedro had to start all over again to care for and provide for his family.
He initially struggled because he did not speak the language and had to turn to manual labour to support us but he had a great work ethic and determination to make something of his new life.
He began to study and practise the English language with an almost obsessive tenacity that amazed many of his own family.
In 1982 he opened his first Darwin business, a Chinese takeaway shop in Stuart Park.
Dad had already become an influential member of the Chinese East Timorese community in Darwin and had been asked by Paul Everingham, the first Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, to be the voice of that community. Many East Timorese had fled the violence in their home country several years before and needed some representation in the community. My father stepped up to this role with aplomb.
In 1979 he helped set up the NT Timor Chinese association, giving a voice to that vibrant community and laying the foundations for its social and business enterprises. My father was the master of such public relations roles and these political dealings kept opening other doors.
Meanwhile, in his business dealings, my father had diversified into setting up a cleaning company and soon all my siblings and I were working, remember the ethos that he had drummed into us that nothing of value comes without hard work.
In 1994 my father established the NT Hakka Association. It was one of his proudest achievements and he was thrilled this year when we celebrated the 20th anniversary of the NT Hakka Association.
It is an organisation that has helped build the Hakka community and kept the culture strong but has also shared much with the wider Territory society. It has now established links with Hakka communities all over the world.
Deservedly, my father has been made an honorary life member of the NT Hakka Association.
Rotary is another community organisation that my father was proud to be associated with over the years. He helped raised funds for appeals both in Darwin and East Timor.
His own personal philanthropy is well recognised and in 2000 he was named as a Paul Harris Fellow in recognition of his generosity to Rotary.
Ten to 12 years ago my Dad’s health started to deteriorate after he was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s and I decided it was time for him to put his feet up and take a back seat from the business.
I am proud to say that I have followed in the footsteps of my father. He was my mentor and I adhere to the ethos he taught me and all his family that to truly appreciate the value of money you have to work for it. Nothing in this life of value comes easy.
I have never had to worry about the business decisions I made because I knew that Dad would back me if he knew I trusted my gut feeling.
Even though ill-health forced my father to take a back seat from the family businesses, he still kept a close eye on what was going on and was active socially regularly attending functions and parties. He couldn’t wait to get up each morning to take the bus to Casuarina, have a cup of coffee, chat to anybody and everybody and just enjoy life.
He also took a keen interest in his 10 grandchildren and made sure they were all doing their best at school and keeping up with their homework.
On behalf of my mother Emilia, my three sisters Angelina, Margaret and Sophya, and the grandchildren, I want to pay tribute to my father for all he has done for us.
You have enriched our lives more than you will ever know and we are proud to be called your family. You touched so many lives in a positive way that I believe that anyone who met you was a better person because of it.
I know your spirit will always be with us and you will keep a close eye on all of us as well as the many friends you made from all walks of life. I know you will be urging us all to be bold and hard working in life, appreciate all the gifts we have and to always trust our gut instincts.
We love you and we miss you.
Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I thank the members of parliament for that leave.
I will always remember Pedro Yap’s wise counsel, his generosity and support in my roles as both the member for Karama and as a Cabinet minister in the Labor government. I am certain honourable members on both sides of this Assembly have been the recipients of Pedro’s sound advice and generosity.
I know all honourable members will join me in paying tribute to Pedro’s lifelong achievements and his contribution to the community in East Timor and the Northern Territory. I express my deepest sympathy to Pedro’s loving wife Emelia, son Henry, daughters Angelina, Margaret and Sophia, his 10 grandchildren and devoted daughter-in-law Susanna. We have lost a truly wonderful Territorian. May the late Pedro Yap rest in peace.
On a separate note, it is with disappointment I heard the ridiculous comments the Leader of Government Business made at the start of the adjournment. There is no Labor hit list or black list. Actions speak louder than words, and Territorians could see the actions of Labor when we came into government in 2001. We did not behave in the manner in which Territorians saw the CLP government behave when it came to power in 2012.
The allegations made by the Leader of Government Business are truly abhorrent. They go against our core values and are ridiculous. Maybe his conscience started to struggle with the knowledge that unfair dismissals have occurred under his watch, including the sacking of the member for Johnston’s tremendous wife.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I do not know how the Leader of the Opposition can say what she just did with a straight face. I do not know how she lies straight in bed.
We all know what happened in 2001 when Labor was elected and every person who was a known supporter of the CLP was summarily executed – I mean that figuratively, not literally – from their positions within the senior contract ranks of public service, boards and committees. Everywhere you looked the government positions bled CLP. That was because of the attitude of the Labor government as it came to power sweeping through and clearing out what they perceived as anyone who might stand in their way or oppose their philosophy or way of thinking.
For the Leader of the Opposition to push back as she just has on the member for Port Darwin stinks of hypocrisy in its highest order. She has no credibility in this House when it comes to talking about matters relating to honesty and the way they conducted themselves as a government through 2001 to 2012. With that said, I will move on to the rather nice subject I wanted to talk about tonight.
It is 30 October and we have just 18 days left to get UGLY. For those who do not know what I am talking about, it is in relation to fundraising for leukaemia, lymphoma, myeloma and other blood disorders. It is a campaign to raise funds for those disorders. UGLY stands for Understanding Generous Likeable You. It is a most worthy cause to get behind and is very well supported across this country.
Every day, on average, 31 Australians are diagnosed with some of those blood cancers and disorders I have mentioned. Treatment times for blood cancers can take from several months to years, and families can often find themselves crippled by mounting financial pressures. It is a very tough time for those people.
In general terms, accommodation can be where help is the most welcome for people and their families who have been afflicted by blood disorders of that nature. I refer to the leukaemia.org.au website. Every $80 raised equals one night’s accommodation for a family member who has someone being treated for one of those blood disorders. You can see it is an extremely important cause.
This year’s campaign commenced on 1 October and is due to wind up on 17 November. We do not have long to get behind and support it. This campaign has been running since 2008 and has been described as the Leukaemia Foundation’s quirkiest campaign to get people motivated to support this very worthy cause and charity. I encourage everyone to get involved. With only 18 days and a target for this year of $1.4m, I wish the Leukaemia Foundation every bit of luck.
On that note, on Saturday just gone in Katherine there was an UGLY fundraiser held at the Silver Screen Caf. I have known Katherine to be a very generous community over the time I have been the local member. I would not like to hazard a guess at how much money is raised annually in Katherine through charity events, but I suspect it has to be somewhere in the vicinity of a couple of hundred thousand dollars. That is amazing coming from a small community of 10 000 people.
This event on Saturday night at the Silver Screen Caf was very well supported. There was pretty much standing room only with not too many seats left. It was very well supported by the local business community and local people. I acknowledge a few people and businesses who were involved who donated goods or in-kind support. There was Whitehouse Furnishers Retravision, Rod & Rifle Tackleworld, Mensland, Katherine Cinema 3, Eastside Mini Mart, Target Country – Katherine, Katherine Bendigo Bank, The Top Saddlery and Bush Boutique, Home Timber & Hardware, Katherine Mitre 10, Jim and Maureen King, Jodie Lock, Cicada Lodge, Nitmiluk Tours, Betta Electrical, Murray Pest Control, TBM Installations, Gallop-Through-Time Gallery & Framing, Stuart Hotel, Duncan Electrical, Short and Sweet Home Services, CJ’s Beauty Centre, the Katherine Club Inc, of course UGLY, the Leukaemia Foundation itself and the Silver Screen Caf. All those individuals and businesses made donations for the dinner, auction, raffles and other games and fundraising activities held on the night.
In particular, I mention the Silver Screen Caf and Duane Barclay and his staff who put on a fantastic meal for all of us. It was a sensational night. We had a ball and, at the same time, raised funds for a very worthy cause.
I also mention a young lady by the name of Charley Anning who put this event together. Charley is a young lady who has lived in Katherine for a very long time with her family. I know some of her family members and can assure you Charley is anything but ugly. She is a beautiful young lady – smart, dedicated and devoted to making Katherine a better place. I commend her for the work she did to bring this event to Katherine.
On the night a total of $11 213 was raised. That is another sensational effort by the people of Katherine, all the businesses who supported it and the people who came along. It is the people who come along to these events who stick their hands in their pockets. They are the ones who pay $100 a head for dinner and bid on the auction items. Yours truly bought a couple of auction items and some great things – a beautiful cheese board made by a local artisan and a big framed display print of a rock band that goes back to my era. Some of the young people would know The Angels. I will find a place on a wall for that. It was a wonderful night and I congratulate Charley on the work she did to put the event together, and everyone who came along and were involved.
The other people I mention in the context of the UGLY fundraising effort are Dallas and Belinda from Emerald Springs. Over the course of the last few years we know Belinda has been unwell. Nonetheless, she and Dallas have worked tirelessly to run UGLY events at Emerald Springs. For a couple of years running they were the highest fundraisers of any single entity for the UGLY cause in Australia. When you get people like Dallas and Belinda, who are so keen to help and be involved, and the people who go along, that is what makes these events so successful.
It was a pleasure to go to the event and to speak about it. Katherine is such a generous community it will keep giving to great events like the UGLY fundraiser held on Saturday night.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I was privileged recently to be introduced by my wife, Dawn, to Rick Underdown and his wife. Rick Underdown was born in Tennant Creek Hospital in 1947. He and his lovely wife had returned to Tennant Creek to explore that early period in his life and the community, which they certainly did. The Underdown family is also a famous pioneering family in Alice Springs. It was great to meet Rick and his wife and share a contemporary story of Tennant Creek, as well as his great family memories of that place.
In relation to Tennant Creek, I will quote from a media release from the Minister for Children and Families and the Minister for Disability Services entitled ‘Territory carers’ dedication and support recognised at awards ceremony’:
27 October 2014
- The hard work and dedication of carers was recognised at the Life Without Barriers National Carer Awards, Northern Territory section, held in Darwin today.
The national awards recognise and celebrate carers for the extraordinary contribution they make to the community.
- Minister for Children and Families John Elferink and Minister for Disability Services Robyn Lambley hosted the awards ceremony and joined together to congratulate not just the winners, but all carers from across the Territory for their hard work and dedication.
One of the Northern Territory winners in the category of Foster and Kinship Carer was Sam Cameron from Tennant Creek:
- Eight years ago, Sam first became a respite carer for an eight-year-old girl who has cerebral palsy. Eventually, it became necessary for the girl to move to a more permanent relationship, and she became a long-term member of Sam’s family.
I quote from another media release from the Minister for Health, from 24 October 2014, entitled ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Practitioners Excellence Awards’:
- The Northern Territory’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Practitioners have been celebrated tonight at the annual Excellence Awards at Parliament House.
‘This year, there were 58 nominations – almost twice as many as last year,’ Minister for Health Robyn Lambley said.
‘This is a testament to the growing focus on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Practitioners as a crucial and highly valued part of the NT health sector.’
I offer big congratulations to the winners. I especially mention, in the Other Finalist Certificates of Encouragement section, Tony Duggie, Canteen Creek Clinic and Central Australian Primary Healthcare Services. Well done, Tony, on a great job and to all those Aboriginal Health Practitioners who are on the front line making a difference in improving Indigenous health outcomes.
Another great new story was the Barkly mobile preschool receiving a national early childhood award. I quote from the HESTA Early Childhood Education and Care Awards media release of 8 September 2014 entitled ‘Barkly mobile preschool receives national early childhood award’:
- A Northern Territory Indigenous preschool service for remote communities in the Barkly region has won the Excellence in Building Inclusion Award at the 2014 HESTA Early Childhood Education and Care Awards.
Barkly Mobile Preschool Service won the national award for its work with Indigenous families to boost preschool attendance in the communities of Canteen Creek, Epenarra, Corella Creek and Murray Downs.
Preschool Manager, Doris Johnson – an Indigenous community member from the Barkly Tablelands – regularly travels to each community to help local assistant teachers deliver a daily preschool program to four-year olds.
She supports children in the region by encouraging their families to become more involved in their child’s education and encouraging preschool teachers to complete higher children’s services qualifications.
Ms Johnson led the services’ implementation of an inquiry-based learning program, with a focus on oral language development and extending children’s play into opportunities for learning.
‘Attendance data offers early signs that our efforts to build inclusion are working,’ Ms Johnson said.
‘Local principals say that, when our children move into school transition classes, they have a better knowledge of concepts like colours and numbers, and can write their own names.’
Congratulations, Doris. Keep up the good work because we all know early childhood intervention is the main intervention that will change outcomes and turn them around.
Barkly Regional Arts is a celebrated arts organisation in the region. Barkly Regional Arts recently attended the National Remote Indigenous Media Festival held in Cape York where it won a number of awards: Best Innovation in Online Media and Best Training and Professional Development. MEDIA MOB’s Sean Bahr-Kelly was awarded Best Visual Recording for Camera Work on the Eleanor Dixon ABC Heywire Video Postcard.
Barkly Regional Arts representatives presented a case study on the live web streaming projects the organisation had been doing over recent years and the positive impact it had on community arts and employment in the region. Specific mention was given to Barkly Regional Arts for its comprehensive and professional training programs. Special acknowledgement was also given to the quality and volume of online media that Barkly Regional Arts produces.
An example is from the National Rural Health Alliance. I quote from its media release on 13 October 2014, ‘Connecting Mental Health and Anti-Poverty Weeks’.
- Both poor mental health and poverty occur at slightly higher rates in country than the city areas, and both phenomena have particular characteristics in rural and remote areas that need to be understood when seeking answers. The challenges are greater in rural and remote places.
Just as Mental Health Week and Anti-Poverty Week lie side-by-side, so do their issues. The World Health Organisation … reminds us that ‘an overwhelming majority of people with mental and psychosocial disabilities are living in poverty.’ The NRHA is therefore keen to give the two formal Weeks some rural and remote focus.
- On 16 October at 10.30 am … there is a webcast that will showcase how arts can be used to reduce the effects of mental illness and poverty in a quite remote area. The webcast will in effect be a virtual tour of Barkly Regional Arts. It will feature discussions with members of the Winanjjikari Music Centre, Artists of the Barkly, and Media Mob about how engagement with Barkly Regional Arts helped improve social cohesion and inclusion, two important determinants of mental health. The webcast will bring some national attention to the important role of community arts in remote and rural areas.
A special shout out to Sean Bahr-Kelly for his incredible work on that project produced collaboratively by Barkly Regional Arts in the Northern Territory and the National Rural Health Alliance extreme art in its Anti-Poverty Week project.
I will also talk about the Arlpwe Art & Culture Centre at Ali Curung owned by the Arlpwe Artists Aboriginal Corporation. One of its latest projects is bush tucker and bush medicine garden beds at the centre. It is an incredible project that is developing before our eyes. It is important to recognise the staff and management of the arts centre and this incredible project that encourages participation in visual arts activities, as most of the artists use bush tucker and bush medicine as their subjects.
The centre promotes, sustains and shares culture and cultural tourism as the best option for increased employment opportunities in remote Australia. It develops and educates audiences, school groups, tour groups and various visitors, both national and international. It encourages and develops community leadership and role models as tour guides, providing opportunity for training, personal development and leadership. It promotes economic development in communities with the sale of garden produce. It raises the profile of the Indigenous visual arts industry, art centres and artists. It supports Indigenous employment, strengthening the business model with such developments and diversifying the business model income stream.
I acknowledge Ian and Judy Grieve for their incredible work. The Arlpwe Arts Aboriginal Corporation goes from strength to strength in the diversity of its projects. The latest project it is undertaking is a recycling project. Ian is a master potter, an artist, and will also be resurrecting a kiln and moving to a gas-fired kiln, so we will see some pottery as well.
If anybody is interested in some of the best art and artefacts in the Central Australia region, please visit Ali Curung. Follow the signs and take your credit card with you because you will not be disappointed. In the lead-up to the festive season in 2014, I encourage you to support the art centre and purchase the rellies some excellent high-quality traditional art and artefacts.
Mrs FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, on 20 August this year I spoke about the exciting news of Palmerston Rugby Union Club reaching Level 3 accreditation in the Good Sports Program, the first sporting club in the Northern Territory to do so. I am thrilled to share more great news that the Palmerston Rugby Union Club, just three days ago, was announced as the Northern Territory Good Sports Club of the Year. This is a great achievement for one of Palmerston’s oldest sporting clubs which prides itself on providing a family-friendly environment for all to enjoy. Its club culture is exemplary, and I am exceedingly proud of the club’s members and volunteers. I congratulate Ben Blyton and the committee and club for receiving this award, which is an affirmation of its positive work in promoting healthier attitudes towards alcohol consumption.
On behalf of the people of Drysdale and my parliamentary colleagues, I congratulate the Palmerston Rugby Union Club and I seek to table a copy of the media release issued by Good Sports making the announcement.
Leave granted.
Mrs FINOCCHIARO: I now continue recounting the story of the life of Ann Brown.
Ann drove to Frewena and then to Alice Springs because it was closer. She spent a few days in Tennant Creek and drove up a hill to see what Tennant Creek had to offer. At that point, Ann thought she would stay for a couple of days. Once Ann looked over the hill she was a little disappointed at what she found and was unsure if she could fill a full two days.
Whilst in Alice Springs, Ann worked at Alice Springs Hospital. She recalled how lovely the staff were there. The year was 1968 and Ann recalls the 12-hour shifts in the gastro ward of Alice Springs Hospital. She also recalls the sick babies they would have on IV fluids, and approximately 30 Indigenous babies every night needed to be cared for. Ann is proud of the fact she never lost of child. They all got better and returned to the community; however, sadly some of the children would come back.
Ann told me Alice Springs was the first place she saw drunks beat each other badly. She witnessed broken arms, broken legs, broken skulls and major traumatic injuries coming into the hospital. Ann also worked in the tuberculosis ward at Alice Springs Hospital.
Ann recalled the flies in the Australian outback and how they would get behind her glasses and irritate her eyes. She also recalls how cold it was in June and July and that the nurses would sleep around wood fires in the nurses home as it was too cold to sleep in their beds. They would lie in sleeping bags, sharing a big flagon of port. Ann did not like port but appreciated the warmth.
One of Ann’s fondest memories was of the Haasts Bluff horse race. She recalled the dirt track and commented that there was heaps of dirt everywhere. There were two races with four horses in each race. Ann was amazed at how little horse racing was happening, but how much festivity, drinking and burnt sausages there were on offer. She remembers that weekend as being quite an experience.
Whilst in Alice Springs Ann contracted Hepatitis A. Ann spent six weeks in the nurses’ quarters trying to recover. At that time the hospital refused to pay nurses sick leave so Ann was unpaid for six weeks. They did, however, supply food but the smell of it was almost too much to bear. Following this illness, Ann decided to go to Darwin.
Ann was employed at the old Darwin Hospital at Myilly Point. The nurses’ accommodation was air conditioned and nice. However, she noted the hospital was full of drunk people beating each other. The hospital hosted movies outside every Wednesday night and they were often the latest cowboy movies. There was a big grassed area and a screen, and the nurses pushed all the patients out onto the grass so they could enjoy it.
At the old Darwin Hospital Ann worked in obstetrics, gynaecology and accident and emergency. She reminisced how it was such a well-run hospital. After a while Ann planned to move to Western Australia but that was not to happen.
Skipping forward 10 years in Ann’s life, she was now married, had two children, two step-children and was a stay-at-home mum. In 1979, Ann started as a community health nurse after doing a refresher course in nursing. In that role she looked after all age groups of people from babies to adults, and did palliative care at the home, school visits and health promotions.
At that time the community health nurses worked out of demountables in Anula. Ann spent 25 years as a community health nurse and found the profession and the entire experience rewarding professionally and socially. She recalled the experiences and skills gained from her time as a community health nurse and the unique situations she experienced.
Ann told me nowhere else in Australia had this high level of service and care; they were the best in Australia. She commented on the professionalism of the community health nurse staff. Ann said that a community health nurse was a nurse with all the answers. Ann was the go-to nurse and helped people with their issues and how to come to terms with the changes in their lives.
In 1982, Ann and the community nurse services moved to Casuarina Plaza. There were 14 nurses to promote health services from Nightcliff to Berrimah for the northern suburbs. At that time, a community health nurse was recognised as a helping agent and they helped everyone with everything from bathing, occupational therapy, medication, healthy lifestyle – literally any and every health aspect was within their purview.
It came to the point where people realised that these nurses could not know all the specialist areas in the entire health spectrum. The nurses did the best they could with the knowledge they had. It was a relief eventually when the government brought in nurses with expertise in particular areas, such as respiratory nurses to treat asthma sufferers.
You could see Ann’s pride when she talked about the rapport the community health nurses had with their patients. Her comment to me was that it was priceless. Friendships were made between nurses and clients and the relationships were very strong.
One funny story Ann told me was when she had a homeless client who asked her if she liked chicken. Ann said yes. The next day the homeless man came to the clinic with a live chicken and left it with her. The poor man had no idea that this was an inappropriate gift, but Ann accepted it somewhat surprised. Luckily, Annette, one of the other nurses, took the chicken home to live with her chickens.
Another funny story was when a client gave her half-a-dozen eggs. Ann was very grateful for the eggs. However, over the course of the day she could hear a squeaking noise from her desk. Ann looked at the eggs and four chickens had hatched. Poor Annette had to take them home also.
In the mid-1980s Ann had a two-seater Suzuki Hatch she would do her nurse visits in. She would tend to the disabled with the daily bathing and hygiene services. One of her clients was a caretaker at the sewage ponds. She was looking after the client for over a week. One day she saw a huge crocodile on the tiny road that was bigger than her car. She had to drive very carefully between the crocodile and the sewage ponds. She excitedly told the patient about her discovery, only to be told the croc had been there all week. Ann was quite shocked that she had never noticed it.
Ann recounted the good rapport she had with many Aboriginal families living in urban housing and hostels. Ann spent many hours building up trust so she could teach the families about diabetes, scabies and living in an urban community.
When Ann would go to someone’s house – if, for example, someone had been diagnosed with diabetes – she would sit on the grass with the women to teach them and conduct blood sugar tests which would leave a little bit of blood on the person. She laughed when she recalled that the green ants would be walking through her patient’s blood.
In 1992, community care centres evolved with an emphasis on primary healthcare. Mission statements, goals and strategies were all developed so she could show that the current issues with health and wellbeing in the community would be addressed. Accreditation was not achieved until 10 years later.
On Ann’s birthday in August 1999 she came to work and found a computer on her desk. These were the first computers introduced, and nurses did not know what to do with them. The whole gamut of academic knowledge of programs overcame the necessity to have a laugh and keep trying to bring health promotions to the forefront. In Ann’s view, everyone became too focused on trying to work the damn computer.
One of the highlights of Ann’s career and, indeed, life, was in September 1999 when the humanitarian crisis in East Timor broke out. Ann recalls seeing horrific images of what was happening in East Timor on the television. All in Darwin knew what was going on there. When 2000 refugees from East Timor were evacuated to Darwin, a large network of people were pulled together to put up a tent city at the Greek Orthodox Club on McMillans Road. Everything had to be established for the refugees: electricity, telephone, toilet and shower blocks, tents, bedding, clothing, shoes, toiletries, baby food, baby supplies, medical and nursing care.
Ann’s community health nurses were rostered on for different shifts to assist the refugees at all times. The community health nurses were allocated a large room which they turned into a first aid station that was full of partition walls, trestle tables, dressings, medications, baby bottles of milk, drinking water and assessment and treatment equipment. A triage area was set up to assess over 1800 refugees. Ann recalls that approximately 50% were very sick and all of them were dehydrated. It was three weeks of organised chaos – or maybe just chaos – in which the community health nurses had to try to assess, treat, feed and clothe all of the refugees.
The main ailments of the refugees were tuberculosis, malaria, gastro, shigella, campylobacter, diarrhoea, sores, coughs, colds, high temperatures, chicken pox and measles. Every minute of every day the community health nurses did their best to organise, treat, feed, care for and befriend this traumatised refugee community. Every day the community health nurses would face hundreds of refugees lining up for treatment.
There were many difficulties including the language barrier. Ann recalls how frustrating it was not to be able to speak the main language spoken, which was Tetum. Even Portuguese or Indonesian would have helped. The community health nurses did have access to some very dedicated translators who worked around the clock to assist the community nurses in delivering the highest-quality treatment possible.
The community nurses ensured that by the time the refugees were transported interstate the vast majority had been returned to good health. Ann remembers that in the first two weeks of this calamity the community health nurses had delivered six babies, which no doubt added to the chaos.
When the refugees left the tent city each of them had a medical folder with their assessment, diagnosis, immunisations and treatments to take with them for the rest of their lives. This is something Ann is tremendously proud of.
Ann has an impeccable memory, and anyone who knows her will attest to that. She can recount in the most vivid detail some awesome events that happened in her life. We would all be so fortunate to have a memory as strong as Ann’s.
Ann recounted to me the many funny events that happened to her and her colleagues when they were community health nurses, and recalled one occasion which is both funny and embarrassing. She was showing a client how to use a peak flow meter, and blew so hard into the meter to demonstrate its action to the patient that her false teeth came out. Ann and her client erupted into laughter. When they recovered from their fit of hysterics, the client then assisted Ann in showing her how to properly operate the peak flow meter.
On another much more serious and sad occasion, Ann was driving past Casuarina High School to conduct home visits when she saw a car stopped in the middle of road with a pair of legs sticking out underneath. Ann immediately thought it must have been an accident site and pulled over to help. It turned out to be a 15-year-old student who had wanted to commit suicide, so had crawled under the car. Ann sat with, talked to and comforted the student, who eventually agreed to come out from underneath the car. As Ann was relieved the student was coming out from under the car, he grabbed her shirt and pulled it right off her back in the middle of Trower Road. There were cars and buses going past at a furious rate, and there was Ann, sitting next to her car and a teenage boy, half naked. Ann managed to retrieve half her shirt and ran into the school office, with tears of embarrassment running down her face. Despite this she was pleased the student went on to receive the appropriate counselling and ongoing mental health support.
There was one tragic occasion when Ann was assisting a palliative care client. She recalls attending the home. The sewerage system in that home had overflowed and raw sewage had filled the entire house, ankle deep. Ann and her colleagues had to go into the home and retrieve the client and the family out of this horrific situation to take them to hospital. As if the family was not going through enough at that difficult time, the wife of the palliative care patient then had to watch all her furniture and carpets be taken to the dump.
Ann recalls that palliative care was exhausting. She nursed dying people in their homes and had to fight constantly to get medicine for palliative care patients in the home. She fought this battle with emergency department doctors who, in Ann’s view, knew very little about palliative care. They were just giving nurses 100 mg of morphine and sending them on their way. In Ann’s true style she lobbied for two years to get a palliative care facility, and recalls getting $16 per night to be on call for palliative care. If you ended up being called out you received some time in lieu.
One thing Ann loved about palliative care was that you were welcomed into people’s families; you would see how families were coping with their grief and how they were interacting with each other. Ann recalls having to mentor them and shed tears with them so a person’s stories could be heard and shared in the person’s last weeks of life.
It was a truly multicultural experience for Ann, and all those experiences created challenges, but she gained so much from all of it. Whether it was Aboriginal, Greek or Indian families she was treating, relationships were built and trust was gained.
Community care nurses used to also conduct school screening for Years 1, 4 and 7. One of the main reasons they conducted this screening was to check for signs of child abuse. Ann recalls examining a five-year-old boy one day. She asked him to draw a picture of his mum and dad. The child drew a picture of a person lying on a bed with a dagger in their belly. Ann found out later that this child’s dad had murdered his mother, and not a single person at the school knew about it. Following that incident, he received the appropriate support.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016