ESTIMATES COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS – 18 September 2002 CHIEF MINISTER In Committee in Continuation: Mr CHAIRMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, colleagues, it being 9 am, I propose that we continue this Estimates Committee. I reflected overnight, as I suppose most people have, about our progress. I will not go into that again. It is, in a way, a little like a cricket match. We really have to cooperate with one another to try to get through the two innings. A member: Is it a test match or a one day? Mr CHAIRMAN: No, this is a test match. We have a … Ms Martin: We could have penalties. Mr CHAIRMAN: Well, that is right. A member: We need five days then. Mr CHAIRMAN: Maybe. No, this is the Sheffield Shield. I would exhort everybody involved to try to get through our business as speedily as possible. We were aiming to have three ministers today. We are about half way through the Chief Minister and we still have the member for Nhulunbuy to go. By my estimation makes four-and-a-half. So let us go to it. The first business overhanging from last night was in relation to Output 03.10, which was the NT Railway. It has been confirmed to me that that will be dealt with by Minister Henderson. That leads us onto Output 04.10 which is Support to Executive, Ministers and Leader of the Opposition. Once again, the member for Brennan has asked most of the questions here and I put it in his hands. Mr WOOD: Mr Chairman, did you get a ruling on those questions about the railway … Dr Lim: 65 and 81. Mr WOOD: Was it 65 and 81? Mr CHAIRMAN: I was just informed that all that set of questions will be directed to and accepted by Minister Henderson. Mr WOOD: Thank you. Mr CHAIRMAN: Output No 04.10, Support to Executive, Ministers and Leader of the Opposition. Support to Executive, Ministers and Leader of the Opposition Mr BURKE: Mr Chairman, before I ask the first question I pick up on what you said about having this process move expeditiously. It is disappointing, to say the least, that after one day of questions in an Estimates Committee - an Estimates Committee that was supposed to be conducted in a cooperative fashion - that we listened to the comments by the Deputy Chief Minister on radio this morning threatening to cut down the process and table documents without any explanation. That follows on what, essentially, was a threat to the member for Nelson evidenced by his comments last night. I remind you, Mr Chairman, that it is our job as members of parliament to examine the budget, and we are doing that within the process that your own government put in place. I also remind you that this process is not based on written questions. I refer you to the resolution of the parliament that put this process in place. The motion talked about questions and eventually states that members may – and I ESTIMATES COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS – 18 September 2002 stress ‘may’ - submit written questions. We did submit written questions but we have made it perfectly clear that we consider that that is only part of the process; that we would have other questions. We also warned you, I remind you, that the process would take some time. When the Deputy Chief Minister says it took 41 hours tops in the past, that was when the Labor opposition at the time had two hard-working members: Mr Bailey and Mr Bell. When those two were at full speed on their own it took 41 hours. You now have 10 hard-working members of a very experienced opposition, and we intend to examine this budget within the confines of the resolution of the parliament. To do otherwise is contemptuous of our parliament. If the Deputy Chief Minister wishes to proceed along that line, I remind you it is contemptuous. However, that is within your and the government’s prerogative. If you proceed along that way, that is the end of any claim to open, honest and accountable government. We will do our best to get the answers and we will move as quickly as possible. Mr CHAIRMAN: Leader of the Opposition, on those issues, what I would be hopeful of, where possible and appropriate, is that you might accept the written answers to some questions and focus on others. However, that is your prerogative and I will leave it in your hands. I ask that ministers be as short and concise as they can to the question, and that we avoid repetitious questioning. You have made your statement, Opposition Leader and we have heard what you said. If we could proceed, please. Mr BURKE: Thank you. Question 144 and 88, the same question essentially: what is the budgeted 2002-03 expenditure for the employment of six staff at the Office of Central Australia? How does it compare to the cost of running that office in the previous financial year? (a) How much of the expenditure is allocated to the employment of existing staff?; how much is allocated to the employment of more staff?; how much is allocated for consultants? (b) apart from salaries, what are the additional costs of maintaining that office?; (c) how many vehicles are allocated to that office and where are they housed?; and (d) what allocation exists for other expenditure such as entertainment and functions? Ms MARTIN: The budget for the Office of Central Australia is incorporated into the budget of the Office of the Chief Minister. In order to facilitate comparison between 2001 and previous years, the various figures that I will mention are met at department line overheads. The budgeted 2002-03 expenditure for the Office of Central Australia is $690 000. In 2001-02, the cost of running the Office of Central Australia from 27 August 2001 was $435 814. This figure only includes 10 months of the financial year and does not include the previous government. In addition, the office was only fully staffed late in the year. Specific to (a) $517 000 is allocated to the employment of existing staff; (b) the operational costs of the Office of Central Australia are estimated at $173 000 for 2002-03; (c) three vehicles are allocated to the Office of Central Australia - one is housed by the senior ministerial officer and the other two vehicles are housed on a rotational basis between the other staff; and (d) any entertainment and hospitality expenditure will be met from the wider Office of the Chief Minister expenditure. There was a tiny difference between 88 and 144. Yes, there is a consultant question in 144. There are currently no specification allocation for consultants. Any consultant expenditure required would come from the wider Office of the Chief Minister expenditure. Mr BURKE: So all of the costs of that office are picked up within the Office of the Chief Minister? Ms MARTIN: Yes. Mr BURKE: No costs are borne by the department? ESTIMATES COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS – 18 September 2002 Ms MARTIN: Not for that office. Mr BURKE: Question 92: what is the 2002-03 budget cost of providing video conferencing facilities from the Office of Central Australia to meet the election promise that video conferencing would be provided? How many video conferences have been held and what was the cost of these? When did video conferencing first commence? What was the reason for any delay? Which ministers have participated in video conferences? Ms MARTIN: The cost of purchasing and installing the video conferencing facility was $58 009. This provided equipment for both Alice Springs and Parliament House in Darwin. The system was installed in July. The video conferencing facility between Parliament House and Alice Springs has been installed to support the business of government, and will generally be used by government to enable meetings to take place without the cost associated with travel. While not intended for general community use, it will be used to facilitate discussion between government and members of the community, business and organisations generally. The annual cost of leasing telephone lines to provide the service is estimated between $7000 and $10 000, depending on usage. There are four lines at a cost of $870 each per year. Usage costs are governed by the time spent using the facility, the time of day and the distance. The facility has been used by me, by Minister Toyne and Minister Ah Kit. This included Minister Toyne participating in a Cabinet meeting from Alice Springs. Mr BURKE: Question 96: how much was spent on advertising Inside Our Parliament in 2001-02? How much will be spent in 2002-03? I imagine the full year figures will be the same. I would remind the Chief Minister of her comments in Hansard which she went at length to describe how unfair we were in government at the time as we did not include the business of opposition in Inside Our Parliament. Do you still hold that view? If you do, how do you intend to rectify it to afford with those views, or have you changed them? Ms MARTIN: As at the end of August, $1789 has been spent in 2002-03. Inside Our Parliament advertising expenditure for 2001-02 was $11 232. 2001 for the previous year was $13 234. I am very committed to having Inside Our Parliament provide information to the community about what is in fact happening inside the parliament. We have reduced the amount of expenditure by only having half page advertisements where possible, and not a full page.