2006-08-24
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Behaviour in Chamber
Behaviour in Chamber
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, during the current sittings, I have on several occasions had to ask some members to withdraw comments that have been unparliamentary, offensive or inappropriate, to repeatedly ask members to cease interjecting, and generally to call order for disorderly and sometimes disrespectful behaviour on a number of occasions.
Leader of the Opposition, I ask you to take particular note of this warning. During the past two days, I have had occasion to call you to order 19 times, including 12 times during one member’s speech. I have had to ask you to withdraw unparliamentary comments on nine occasions. On one of those occasions, I have had ask you to withdraw three times. I have also had to refer to you on a further nine occasions for general conduct such as frivolous points of order, use of unparliamentary matter in the Chamber such as stickers, and speaking while the Speaker is speaking. You are aware that I have shown greater leniency towards you as you are the Leader of the Opposition and I have great respect for that position. However, today I will be enforcing Standing Orders 51, 62 and 63, and will be asking members to withdraw from the Chamber if necessary under Standing Order 240A if required.
Uranium Mining - Policy
Ms CARNEY to CHIEF MINISTER
You recently changed your position on Labor’s no new mines policy because you knew of the importance of the mining industry to the Northern Territory. If federal Labor’s uranium policy does not change, you will be bound to support a policy that you disagree with. Will you support the policy if you disagree with it or, will you stand up for the Territory and encourage expansion of the industry, despite what Labor’s national headquarters says?
Mr Stirling: It is a hypothetical. Do not have to answer hypotheticals.
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, as the Deputy Chief Minister pointed out, the question is hypothetical. If we are going to be taking standing orders literally, as we probably we should, I should not answer it. However, I am happy to talk about uranium policy …
Ms Carney: Oh, thanks.
Ms MARTIN: … so, if that is all right, Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: Order, Leader of the Opposition!
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, if that is okay with the House, I will answer the Opposition Leader’s question.
The Labor Party had a three mine policy in regard to uranium mining. Since about 1982 the new policy was changed to ‘no new mines’. Many in the party - it is still a contentious issue - would like to see that policy discussed at the next conference, which is in the second quarter of next year.
I am pleased that federal Labor Leader, Kim Beazley, has said that he, personally, would like to see the policy changed. I believe that has provided key leadership on this issue. I say I agree as well. I am a member of the Labor Party and, as a member of the Labor Party, I abide by policies. There has been work done in policy to have that change happen in terms of the discussion at the national conference. I will be advocating, on my behalf, because I am one member at that conference. However, I will be talking to others, to have that detailed debate. I would like to see that policy change; that we mine uranium, as with every other resource, on a case-by-case basis.
Due to the nature of uranium and the concerns we have about who uranium is sold to, the key to that debate is that Australia should not be selling uranium to countries that have not signed up to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty - very important. Another important aspect is - and it is still one that is not resolved adequately - where we actually store the nuclear waste. We know the disgraceful attitude of the federal government - and I use this word carefully - lying to the Northern Territory. The federal government and the Prime Minister lied to the Northern Territory about not having a nuclear waste dump, and turned around and said: ‘That was a promise we are not intending to keep at all’. Now we know what is happening. An assessment has been done of those proposed nuclear waste sites here in the Territory. It is a disgrace!
Putting that aside for the moment, in answer to the Opposition Leader’s question on uranium, she knows too well that any decisions about uranium mines going ahead in the Territory are with the federal government. To give a little history here, the Labor Party nationally has been in opposition for 10 years. In that time, there has been no rush of uranium mines being developed in the Northern Territory. They could have, because the federal government has the responsibility. Regarding blocking mining in the Territory, if uranium mining companies wanted to go ahead, it could have happened in the last 10 years because we do not have a say about it.
On the broader issue of mining we have seen substantial growth. We are delighted as it is certainly boosting the Territory’s economy and our exports and providing jobs in regional parts of the Territory.
Government’s Role in Construction
in the Territory
in the Territory
Mr KNIGHT to TREASURER
High levels of expenditure on capital works and infrastructure is a critical factor behind the Territory’s strong economy. Can you advise the House on the Northern Territory government’s role in the construction levels across the Territory/
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Daly for his question. We do have a strong role in this expenditure; $2.7bn was rolled into construction across the Territory since we came to office. Last financial year alone, that level was $500m. This year it is about $484m. This stands in stark contrast to when we came into office in August 2001 when the construction industry was simply non-existent. So poor was the fiscal management of the Country Liberal Party at that time that we inherited a $130m deficit and not enough funds to cash the projects in the minor new works program past November of 2001. At that time, the revote of the previous year’s capital works program was higher than the cash available to finance the new program.
Today, the infrastructure program is highly targeted and highly focused. There is a high level of cash allocated, unlike when our predecessors were in government. There is a strong split of work between minor new works, repairs and maintenance and major capital works. We do not put all of our cash eggs into the one basket when we come to the construction industry; we have spread those capital works dollars around the Territory with major projects and minor new works in Central Australia, right through to the Top End. We have focused our infrastructure program with specific objectives in mind.
We have financed infrastructure that will, in turn, leverage a flow-on expenditure from the private sector. For example, the Mereenie and Litchfield Loop roads will, spin off into tourist infrastructure in those regions. The investment in the bulk loading facility project at the wharf has seen a very rapid development of projects like Bootu Creek minerals.
We have financed infrastructure aimed at developing the community. Education infrastructure right across the Territory will provide strong community benefits in those communities where we have built or are building. Currently, five secondary schools, a new primary school at Emu Point soon to open, standard facilities at Pine Creek, Manyallaluk, Donydji, Mapurru, Papunya, as well as schools in our urban centres, and to top it off, the middle schools roll out.
We have financed infrastructure aimed at continuing essential services this year: $134m programmed on roads; $87m on capital works and, $40m on repairs and maintenance for power and sewerage systems. This funding will provide new generation capacity in Darwin, Alice Springs and Palmerston. We have done all of this as well as work on the waterfront. I know the opposition does not like the waterfront, but they need to know that we have almost spent, or will have spent, $2.7bn in cash on projects other than the waterfront.
The infrastructure spend has fuelled the growing economic strength of the Territory. It has sustained many thousands of jobs in the construction industry, 5000 this year directly out of our capital works expenditure, and it provides that strong base for economic growth into the future for the Northern Territory.
Uranium Enrichment Industry
Ms CARNEY to CHIEF MINISTER
Value adding to products means value adding to the Territory’s exports. In parliament this week, you have spoken fervently about your desire to grow jobs and business. Would you support the establishment of an uranium enrichment industry in the Territory, and if so, how?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I welcome this question because we heard the news this morning that the CLP, in its conference this weekend, is going to tackle uranium enrichment. That is wonderful, but what you also hear is that a party of four in here is divided on the issue.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, obviously this question is for me to give guidance to the party about what they should do, and certainly the Labor Party’s view is a very clear one: we do not support …
Dr Lim: What is your position?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms MARTIN: The Labor Party’s view is a very clear one: we do not support uranium enrichment and we do not support nuclear reactors in this country.
What the Territory significantly supports - it would be nice to hear a bit more support on gas downstreaming, adding value to the gas we have. It is a wonderful source of energy. It creates jobs, industry and opportunity for our businesses. I have talked to the federal government. I would like to have a bit more support from the other side of House on this. It is a very simple argument. While we value LNG, we do not want every single molecule of gas that comes in from the Timor Sea going to LNG. We just want to take a slither for downstreaming to create petrochemical and methanol industries. We have land here, we have opportunity, and certainly want to grow our industrial base and also our jobs.
Dr Lim: You have wasted every one of them.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms MARTIN: So, the CLP, this weekend, will have a divided discussion about uranium enrichment …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms MARTIN: That is fine. I am not going to give you guidance. Kim Beazley is very clear on this. We are very firm on this …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Greatorex!
Ms MARTIN: … but it would be nice for the opposition to be more supportive of the very solid position of using gas for downstream industries. That really is the future of our Territory.
Fire Management Regimes
Ms McCARTHY to MINISTER for NATURAL RESOURCES, ENVIRONMENT and HERITAGE
Could you share with the House details on a landmark agreement to unite traditional Aboriginal knowledge with modern science to enhance fire management regimes? Before the minister replies, I take this opportunity to welcome members of the Jawoyn Association who are in the gallery behind me.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, like the member for Arnhem, I also acknowledge the presence of members from the Jawoyn Association who were at the signing of the landmark agreement at lunchtime. Elders and rangers came in from most of the communities, in particular Maningrida, to sign and to see the signing of the West Arnhem Fire Management Agreement.
The idea for this project comes from what seems an unlikely source - Aboriginal traditional owners of the West Arnhem Land from coastal Maningrida to the upper Mann and Katherine Rivers. It reveals what seems to be an unlikely champion of traditional Aboriginal knowledge, the Darwin LNG Plant. This is the linking of the two important industries. The land managers of West Arnhem Land have been caring for country for many thousands of years. This project legitimises what they have been doing as the scientific evidence has come down to demonstrate that traditional fire management practices, moderate patchwork burning in the early to mid-Dry Season, produces lower greenhouse emissions.
However, it does more than that. It also protects biodiversity across the land, and in particular the rainforest pockets of the region that have been under increasing threat from wildfires. On the other hand, the gas industry, undoubtedly one of the keys to our economic growth, is biting the bullet on this. The Darwin LNG could have just as easily have invested in a blue gum plantation in Western Australia, but instead has embraced a typically Territory solution to combine traditional indigenous knowledge systems with contemporary western science to offset greenhouse emissions.
As we know, gas is substantially a clean energy source but does produce greenhouse emissions.
Mr Wood: Why are you stopping burning then?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I know the member for Nelson hates hearing this …
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: … but, I will say it time and time again. It is substantially a clean energy source. It does produce greenhouse emissions. This project offsets those emissions. This is a world first, and it does not stop here because there are lessons to be learnt. This project means that paid employment on our remote outstations in Arnhem Land will expand significantly, demonstrating that the land management industry is a viable way forward for Aboriginal Territorians. It means jobs and it means …
Mrs Braham: The answer is too long.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, order!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I know you do not like it, but it is …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: We talk about growing our economy and this is about growing our economy. It is about Aboriginal participation in employment. I know that you might not like hearing about that, but for us, we celebrate that on this side. It is about Aboriginal people caring for their country. It is about having …
Mrs BRAHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Answers to questions should be short, sharp and shiny and this has been going on for nearly five minutes. I think it is far too long and I ask the minister to get to the point.
Madam SPEAKER: Resume your seat, member for Braitling. There is no point of order.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Madam Speaker, I am almost finished. Usually we see projects like this going for two or three years with no real outcomes; this project has been signed off over 17 years. It will provide the outcomes for those people.
Uranium Enrichment Industry
Ms CARNEY to CHIEF MINISTER
Could you outline to Territorians, what is the basis for your opposition to a uranium enrichment industry in the Northern Territory? Could you explain to this House your understanding of what processes and systems are used for the enrichment of uranium? If you have trouble answering those questions, how can you reject the establishment of an industry in the Territory that you know nothing about?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I am sorry, but I am not a nuclear physicist. It was not something I studied at university, unlike the Opposition Leader, who obviously understands all those aspects.
Ms Carney: I thought we were going to have an inquiry.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition!
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, may I seek a point of order, please? I assume, notwithstanding what you said at the outset, that I am, like other members in the Assembly, allowed to interject and that I am still able to call points of order?
Madam SPEAKER: Of course you are able to call points of order.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, remain standing. I am very concerned about your behaviour in this Chamber, and you are on a warning. Resume your seat.
Ms CARNEY: Yes, Madam Speaker, but can I confirm that I am able to interject.
Madam SPEAKER: You are on a warning.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister has tasked Ziggy Switkowski, who does happen to be a nuclear physicist, with a team to travel around Australia looking at the issue of uranium enrichment. I believe Dr Switkowski is going to be in the Territory within the next month.
From a point of view of whether Australia wants to head further into the uranium enrichment, nuclear reactor area, Labor is very clear: we do not. There are other industries we can develop. The research and consultation that will be done by the Prime Minister’s group, headed by Dr Switkowski, will demonstrate a very strong resistance in Australia to having uranium enrichment and also having nuclear reactors.
We know the federal government did an assessment of sites for nuclear reactors, and guess where one was going to be.
Ms Carney: It is not about a nuclear reactors.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, you will withdraw from the Chamber for one hour.
Ms Carney: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, we probably had the Country Liberal Party celebrating a nuclear reactor in Darwin. They certainly celebrated the reverse decision of the federal government to put a nuclear waste facility in the Territory. It would be interesting to find out where the Country Liberal Party thought the nuclear waste facility should go. It is about time their support turned into actual details. Maybe the member for Katherine thinks that putting it in the Katherine region would be a good idea. Let us check that. Maybe the member for Greatorex would like to be a bit more up-front about whether the nuclear reactor should be …
Dr LIM: You continue to raise NIMBY’s.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex.
Dr LIM: Madam Speaker, may I address a point of order. The Chief Minister addressed me directly and I thought I had the right to interject in that instance.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, you know perfectly well there is not meant to be debate across the Chamber. Chief Minister, please direct your comments through the Chair.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, there are two sites in Central Australia, maybe the member for Greatorex would like to say whether he would like to have a nuclear waste dump at either of those sites.
There is a multiplicity of issues here which the Country Liberal Party is being been very cute about. I say, quite unequivocally, the Labor Party does not support uranium enrichment, it does not support nuclear reactors, and it does not support the federal government …
Mr Mills: Ignorance is bliss. Do not even look at it. Give us a break.
Ms MARTIN: … lying to Territorians …
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Blain!
Ms MARTIN: … saying we will have a nuclear waste dump in the Territory despite our promise at the last election.
Darwin City Waterfront –
Contaminated Soil
Contaminated Soil
Ms SACILOTTO to MINISTER for PLANNING and LANDS
Can you please update the House on progress being made in dealing with soil at the Darwin City waterfront site which was contaminated when the area was used for industrial purposes in days gone by?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Port Darwin for her question. I make regular site visits to the waterfront and, as most citizens of Darwin who go there on a regular basis will see, that site and that project is rapidly taking shape, which is great to see. Underlying that site, due to many industrial uses over the years, including war time, there has been significant contamination. There was thought to be significant contamination on that site and, prior to the development beginning, there were quite a few studies carried out on the extent and pattern of the contamination on the site. In fact, the contamination that has been unearthed, so to speak, so far, is significantly less than what was expected. Nonetheless, there is contamination there, mainly hydrocarbon contamination.
The issue of remediating that soil is a significant one, and it certainly has had some press in the last three or so weeks. In view of that, I thought it prudent to invite the Lord Mayor of Darwin, Peter Adamson, and some local ward aldermen to be briefed and to see for themselves exactly what is happening with the remediation process. Those aldermen were Rodger Dee, Helen Galton and Heather Sjoberg, as well as the Darwin City Council’s environment officer.
We inspected the stockpile site. The system to remediate the soil is actually fairly simple - it uses the air, it turns the soil over and uses moisture. Within a relatively short period of 12 weeks, 100% is remediated and it can be reused on the site, because fill is certainly a premium at that particular site. It is a bioremediation process, where the contaminated soil is confined in engineered piles while oxygen, water and nutrients, such as phosphorous and nitrogen, enhance biodegradation. This process degrades hydrocarbon contaminants, such as fuel oils, and then the hydrocarbons are broken down to carbon dioxide, water and soil humus. The inorganic fractions become physically and chemically bound to the soil particles.
Importantly, the whole process is properly audited. Environmental consultants, URS Australia, do that work locally, and they are overseen by an independent contaminated land auditor who is accredited under the Victorian Environment Protection Agency. It is a fully audited process. The councillors were able to see that there is no wayward soil going off that site. Every bit of that soil is accounted for. The process is very extensive and very professionally run.
Dr Lim: What is the tonnage?
Dr BURNS: Up to this date, more than 1000 m3 of soil has been treated.
Dr Lim: Thank you.
Dr BURNS: I cannot really hear what the member for Greatorex is saying. I know that he spread some furphies …
Dr Lim: I am thanking you for the tonnage.
Dr BURNS: … not at the last estimates hearings, but the hearings before.
Dr Lim: Thank you for the tonnage you just gave.
Dr BURNS: I should have invited the member for Greatorex down there as well, because …
Dr Lim: I would like to have done that too.
Dr BURNS: … he would have been impressed.
Dr Lim: I would have liked to have done that.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: Well, if you want a briefing, and you want to go down there, member for Greatorex, you are more than welcome. If you want to contact my office, I am more than happy for you to go on-site and receive that briefing. You would be more than satisfied with the auditing processes, and the processes on that particular site.
This is a fantastic project that is providing jobs for Territorians. It has been a great boon and boost for local businesses. It is a great project, but underneath it, a lot of care has been taken with the environment. A lot of care will be taken to preserve the heritage in the area - both the settler and Aboriginal heritage. It is going to be great for Darwin. I can hardly wait until the wave lagoon is there. It is going to be something. I have my own little surfboard. I hope to be on one of the first waves.
Builder’s Licence Rejection
Mr WOOD to MINISTER for PLANNING and LANDS
Eugene Scaturchio started work in the Northern Territory in 1956. He started building for himself in 1961, building his family home; 10 flats for Otto Finocchiaro; St Vincent de Paul in Stuart Park; 24 flats for the Housing Commission; 10 houses for the railway in Parap; nine units in Voyager Street; the Roper River Hospital; and 10 homes at Ngukurr; Adelaide River Police Station and the house; the National Mutual Building in Palm Court in Cavenagh Street; kitchen close-in at the Italian Club - and on and on we go.
I seek leave to table the list, Madam Speaker.
Leave granted.
Mr WOOD: Mr Scaturchio was recently knocked back on his application to have an unrestricted builder’s licence because he did not have the three years recent experience required under the legislation.
Do you believe that a builder who has been building houses and office blocks from 1956 up until over - that is 50 years - could not remember how to build a house? Will you ensure Mr Scaturchio gets a licence, and some commonsense is built into the act?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for the question. This is the first time that I have heard of this particular issue of Mr Scaturchio. I will come back to this particular case the member for Nelson has raised. I will comment more broadly about the builders’ licensing and home warranty insurance that this government has introduced.
It was introduced by this government to protect people buying and building houses. Over a long period here in the Territory, we had building companies going bust and leaving people - sometimes young couples - with their whole life savings gone, the company’s has gone into liquidation, and the people have lost everything. That occurred for a long time. I can remember, probably over the last 15 years, there have been at least four building companies that have gone bust.
However, it was this government that did something. We have a home warranty insurance system and a building licensing system to address this very issue - something the previous CLP government did not do. It is a difficult exercise because you have a licensing system that is tied to a home warranty insurance system, when the insurers are looking to the licensing system to see if those who are being licensed are insurable. That is another part of it - there are going to be some people with difficulties. There will be people who will miss out.
The government did not say: ‘These are the rules; everyone has to come up to this mark and those who do not miss out’. We consulted for 18 months, nearly two years, with the building industry on these issues. The changes that were brought in were largely at the request of the building industry. There was a body called a Construction Industry Reference Group that had membership of organisations like the HIA, the TCA, engineers, a whole range of people involved in the building industry on a day to day basis, year in and year out. The criteria that had been applied, both for restricted and unrestricted licenses, are the criteria that were requested by industry.
What I and the government wanted was a fair and flexible system that would allow those people who had been in the industry for a long time, who were currently builders, to be licensed. We were not looking for academic qualifications. What we were looking for were three certificates of occupancy in the last three to five years. Given the state of the Northern Territory building and construction industry at the present time, if someone has not completed three buildings in the last thee years, then they will not be licensed. I am not casting any slurs against Mr Scaturchio, it is a very famous name in the Territory, as, this particular individual has been involved in building a lot of history in the Territory. At the end of the day, what we were asking for were three certificates of occupancy in the last five years. There are two categories of licence; one is restricted, which is to do with building houses and the member for Nelson mentioned unrestricted, which is three storeys and above. As the years have rolled on, the Building Code of Australia has become increasingly more sophisticated and complicated. That is what we asked: if someone has built three of these buildings in the last three to five years, essentially, they will be licensed.
With the specific case that the member for Nelson has raised, I am more than happy to have representations from you and Mr Scaturchio directly. There have been a relatively small number of people who have come to see me on builders licensing, considering that the Licensing Board received over 750 applications. To date, approximately 300 people have been licensed as restricted builders, and approximately 100 people or companies have been licensed as unrestricted builders. The Licensing Board has been working very hard. They have tried to be fair, consistent and flexible. I feel for someone who may have missed out and I am more than willing to take that case. I am not going to interfere directly with the decisions of the board, but I can certainly ask some questions on Mr Scaturchio’s behalf.
Core and Non-Core Functions of Government
Mrs MILLER to MINISTER for INFRASTRUCTURE and TRANSPORT
I have a very simple question to ask you. What to you is the difference between core functions and non-core functions of government? Can you list the core functions of government? Would you also explain how you would prioritise between them? Do you believe that core functions of government should take precedence over non-core functions of government?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, am I back at university - core and non-core functions of government. It is not what I think, member for Katherine. It is really what the electorate believes are the core functions of government. The electorate looks for education, health, policing and, importantly, jobs. Whatever government does has to be built around those expectations of people in the Territory, that this is what they want out of government. We provide infrastructure, such as, roads, electricity, essential services, that is all part of it. The expectations of the people whose doors I knock on in my electorate are around those very basic things that they want government to be providing.
Alice Springs Town Camps
Ms ANDERSON to MINISTER for LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Could the minister inform the House of any actions the Northern Territory government is taking in regards to town camps at Alice Springs?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Macdonnell for her question, as I know she is very committed in respect of what occurs in Alice Springs. I am pleased to inform the House that a steering committee has been formed to implement the recommendations of the Alice Springs Town Camp Task Force. I am also delighted …
Dr Lim: Are you going to release the report?
Mr McADAM: I beg your pardon?
Dr Lim: Are you going to release the report?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex!
Mr McADAM: I respectfully suggest that if you require a report …
Dr Lim: I cannot get one.
Mr McADAM: … ring my office, and we will give you one.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Minister, direct your answers through the Chair, please.
Mr McADAM: I beg your pardon, Madam Speaker. I was going to say that I am delighted that Mr Barry Chambers has been appointed to chair the Implementation Steering Committee for a period for up to six months. Mr Chambers brings a wealth of experience in driving projects and getting results, most recently coordinating the recovery efforts for the Katherine flood earlier this year.
Membership of the Town Camp Implementation Steering Committee will also include representatives from the Alice Springs Town Council; Tangentyere Town Council; the Australian government through the Indigenous Coordination Centre; the Lhere Artepe Aboriginal Corporation; the Department of the Chief Minister; the Department of Local Government and Housing and the Northern Territory Police.
I pay tribute to all members of the Town Camp Task Force, in particular, I thank the Mayor of Alice Springs, Fran Kilgariff, the CEO and President of Tangentyere Council, Mr Geoff Shaw, Mr Brian Stirling and Betty Pearce from Lhere Artepe organisation, and Mr Ross McDougall from the Office of Indigenous Policy Coordination. My thanks especially go to Olga Havnen from the Department of the Chief Minister who chaired the Task Force, and to all the others officers who were involved from the various agencies. It was very much appreciated.
The Task Force will have its final meeting tomorrow, and the Implementation Steering Committee will have its first meeting next week. I look forward to meeting Barry Chambers and his colleagues.
It should be noted that several of the recommendations of the Task Force have already been implemented, including the Northern Territory government funded $2m redevelopment of Stuart Lodge to provide short-term managed accommodation. Also, we are seeking expressions of interest from the private sector to build a facility for indigenous people visiting Alice Springs, alleviating some of overcrowding problems on the town camps, and commencing work on the Connecting Neighbours Program, which is basically to upgrade essential services and infrastructure on town camps.
In conclusion, I do not believe we should ever underestimate the importance of the Task Force, particularly the relationship between Tangentyere Council and the Alice Springs Town Council. It is a very important exercise. It is a very mature response to some very serious and pressing issues. It is a pity that the opposition has not necessarily recognised the importance of this task. Over the last few days, what we have really had is a very negative response. I urge the Leader of the Opposition and all members opposite to join in and work wherever they can in regards to this Task Force because it is an important exercise.
Dr Lim: You were going to invite me to be on it, but you did not.
Mr McADAM: Member for Greatorex, we cannot go back to the 1950s when you had indigenous people who basically could not come in to town and participate in the general community. That happened in the 1950s, and the proposal of late by your Leader of the Opposition for a town camp outside of Alice Springs is pretty sad; we are really talking about something similar to Soweto. We have gone beyond those days. I urge you all on that side, particularly you, member for Greatorex, to embrace the changes. If you wish to be invited on to the Task Force, then I am absolutely certain you can attend on any occasion you wish. I know that you are sincere man and your input will be much appreciated.
Future Water Supply for Darwin
Mrs MILLER to MINISTER for INFRASTRUCTURE and TRANSPORT
If it was not for late Wet Season rains last year, we would probably be on water restrictions by now. The supply of water is a core function of government. The growth of Darwin, especially from developments like the waterfront, will increase demand on water consumption. Although an announcement has been made about some future works on the Darwin River Dam, no real money has been made available for that work, and therefore Territorians have no idea when Darwin’s water supplies will be enhanced.
Minister, are you content with priorities that see the Northern Territory government spending millions on its non-core functions, such as the waterfront, which add to the problems, before government spends money on securing the solutions?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Katherine for her question. Her question should rightly be directed to the Minister for Essential Services, who has …
Mrs Miller: You are the minister for Infrastructure.
Dr BURNS: Yes, but the planning of future water supplies, I know as a former Essential Services minister, that it really lies in the bailiwick of the Minister for Essential Services. However, I can tell you - he will lead on from this – that this government has been very intent on planning for the future water supplies of Darwin, including augmentation of the supply of Darwin River Dam and the creation of a new dam. These things just do not happen in one year. The planning is well under way for those things. I will let my colleague answer the question in full.
Mr HENDERSON (Essential Services): Madam Speaker, to the member for Katherine, it just astounds me, the continuing negativity and hostility towards the waterfront. I do not know what the opposition has got against the waterfront, why they think that over $1bn-worth of investment in our economy is not welcome. They do not want the $1bn-worth of investment in our economy. They do not want the thousands of jobs over the next 10 years in our economy. They do not want a convention centre for the City of Darwin to bring international and domestic tourists to the Northern Territory. They do not want any of those things. I just do not understand the negativity.
All the small businesses in Darwin who have subcontractors and hundreds of people working on the waterfront, are all scratching their heads and wondering why the opposition is so hostile to that project. Keep doing it, because you are digging a road to nowhere, I can certainly tell you that, member for Katherine.
In regard to Darwin’s water supply, I can let the member for Katherine know that Darwin River Dam actually overflowed this year. If the member for Katherine wants a comprehensive briefing on Power and Water’s plans for the future water supply for Darwin, she can have one. At the moment, the consultancies are closed and we are waiting on the reports to look at a number of strategies. One is to raise the height of the dam wall at Darwin River Dam, to look at the engineering and cost issues around that. As my colleague, the member for Johnston said, augmenting a water supply through Manton Dam and the planning for a future dam for Darwin is some years away, but the planning is being done for that. I can confidently say that Power and Water is doing extensive research and work.
As a result of the Wet Season we had this year, Darwin is not suffering water shortages like other capital cities, and there is good planning work going ahead. Power and Water has the biggest infrastructure spend.
Dr Lim: More luck than planning. Planned the rain, did you?
Mr HENDERSON: I do not know – the scaremongering from the opposition. I know the member for Greatorex comes from Central Australia, but we happen to live in the tropics, and occasionally we get a bad Wet Season.
Dr Lim interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Greatorex. Minister, please resume your seat. Member for Greatorex, let me remind you of Standing Order 51: ‘No member may converse aloud or make any noise or disturbance which in the opinion of the Speaker is designed to interrupt or has the effect of interrupting a member speaking’. Member for Greatorex, you are now on a warning. Minister, continue.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, I will be brief.
Dr Lim: We will have an opposition without anyone on the benches.
Mr HENDERSON: I know that he comes from Central Australia, but we do live in the tropics and we get considerable and consistent rainfall. That is not to say that we should be better conserving our water, and Power and Water is running many education programs. I do not know if the member for Greatorex visited the Power and Water show stands recently across the Northern Territory. The stand at the show was about conserving water. There are plans in place. There is the funding in place to commit to those plans, and why the opposition continue to bag the waterfront, I do not know, because this is a government that supports private sector investment. This is a government that supports thousands of jobs for our economy. I wonder why the opposition is being so negative.
Domestic Violence – Targeting Offenders
Mr NATT to MINISTER for POLICE, FIRE and EMERGENCY SERVICES
Domestic violence is a problem that ruins the lives of countless families and their children. Can the minister advise the Assembly on the steps being taken to target this crime?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Drysdale for his question. There is nothing more important in policing than protecting our women and children across the Northern Territory. The scourge of domestic violence, wherever it occurs, is something that police are taking a very significant and proactive approach to.
One of the great benefits of this government’s commitment to Building Our Police Force, with an extra 200 police being resourced through an allocation of an additional $75m, is that it does give the police the capacity to deploy a specialist task force and groups to focus in on different types of crime. I pay credit to our Commissioner, Paul White, who adopted an intelligence-led policing approach in the Northern Territory, initially targeting property crime and repeat offenders of property crime. That approach has seen property crime decrease around 53% across the Northern Territory since this government came to office.
With the additional police numbers we are allocating, we now have dedicated Domestic Violence Protection Units in all of our regional centres across the Territory focusing on this scourge. The police intelligence-led priorities are seeing repeat offenders of domestic violence being targeted by police, and also support for repeat victims. To date, in the six months from February to July this year, apprehensions for breaches of Domestic Violence Orders were up by 48% - from 479 to 711. The police are proactively policing and encouraging women to come forward if there has been a breach. What this shows is that there is increased confidence from victims of domestic violence across the Northern Territory in reporting to police because police are taking action.
As well as providing additional resources …
Dr Lim: How come the unions are still concerned?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, you will withdraw from the Chamber for an hour.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, as well as additional resources to police, we gave police additional powers by strengthening domestic violence legislation, giving the police powers to actually apply interim orders when courts are not sitting, late at night and on the weekends. Police have been using those powers - powers that the CLP opposed. I never did quite understand why they opposed giving police those additional powers.
I know the Chief Minister has met with the Domestic Violence Protection Unit in Alice Springs; so have I. The work that those people do makes your hair stand up on end. Some of the victims and the victimisation that we see …
Madam SPEAKER: I do not have any hair, minister.
Mr HENDERSON: Maybe that was not quite such a good analogy, Madam Speaker. It makes my hair stand up on end.
The victims and the victimisation that has occurred is absolutely appalling, and anything we can do to better protect those women and children across the Northern Territory, we should. I congratulate the police on their approach.
Banning of Plastic Bags
Mrs BRAHAM to MINISTER for NATURAL RESOURCES, ENVIRONMENT and HERITAGE
We are all aware of the damage that plastic bags can do to our environment. Your Labor colleagues in the Victorian government recently announced that the Victorian government will legislate to ban single use plastic bags by 2009. This move was applauded by KAB and environmental groups. The New South Wales Labor government is now considering doing the same. Will you bite the bullet, like your interstate Labor colleagues, and move to ban single use plastic bags in the Territory? Go on, do it, minister!
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Braitling for her question. The Deputy Premier of Victoria, Hon John Thwaites, who is the minister with carriage for that with his New South Wales counterpart, has always been a signatory to the National Packaging Covenant. We have not been a signatory to that covenant. Both of those states, being part of that covenant, made moves towards the elimination of plastic bags.
The second stage of the National Packaging Covenant will be on the agenda for the next Environment ministers’ meeting at the end of the year in which they are looking at the scheme, which was voluntary for all states, becoming a compulsory covenant which includes all states and territories. That is something we will have to discuss.
There are a number of trials already in the Northern Territory which we have funded through the Litter Abatement Scheme. For instance, places like Kakadu have said no plastic bags in Kakadu. There have already been a number of small initiatives in communities. Many of those communities have got rid of plastic bags. They are using paper bags and other resources. If you look at where this is already happening in many of our remote communities, yes, we still have a long way to go. We need to look at the whole issue of plastic bags. I will discuss with my colleagues the second stage of the National Packaging …
Mrs Braham: Come on, minister, you can make the decision yourself.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: … Covenant at the end of the year - you asked me the question, member for Braitling …
Mrs Braham: Yes I know, come on! Yes or no?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, cease interjecting.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: There are some initiatives happening. The second stage will be happening towards the end of the year. We need to get all the facts about whether our population is at a size where industry can also participate. We have to include the retailers in this, that is who generate most of the plastic bags, and we have to include the retail industry in partnership with this. It is the same thing with the beverage industry.
Tourist Loop Roads - Progress
Ms ANDERSON to MINISTER for INFRASTRUCTURE and TRANSPORT
At the last sittings, you informed the House that a $4m contract had been awarded as part of the project to upgrade tourist loop roads in Central Australia. Can you advise the House of any further progress on this very important project?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Macdonnell for her question. Last sittings, as she observed, I was pleased to inform the House of a $4m contract won by Larapinta Constructions to provide gravel for the loop roads project. This particular project was a joint venture between DAC Enterprises Pty Ltd and Ntaria Council. The council is benefiting directly from the contract, and it has also had the opportunity to benefit from the jobs and training the contract will deliver. That was a very important step forward.
This was the third major contract as part of the West MacDonnell Range Tourist Loop Road Project. The first was a $4.1m contract to widen 27 km of narrow seal from the Larapinta Drive between Hermannsburg and Owen Springs. The second was a $3.8m contract to seal 14 km of the Larapinta Drive near Kings Canyon. I can now advise that the fourth major contract is out for tender. This contract is for sealing 48 km of Namatjira Drive, extending the seal from Glen Helen through Tylers Pass. It is expected to cost $12m, with tenders closing early next month. I have been advised that this is probably one of the largest contracts to be let in many years in the Northern Territory since 1978.
These contracts are creating jobs, particularly for local communities, and they have certainly welcomed it. I was speaking to some people from Hermannsburg at the Wave Hill celebrations just last week, and they were very enthusiastic about this project. When that inner loop is complete, it will be a great boost for tourism in Central Australia. It is injecting many millions of dollars into the local economy. I will be informing the House of further progress on these particular works.
Tiger Brennan Drive - Upgrade
Mr MILLS to MINISTER for INFRASTRUCTURE and TRANSPORT
Yesterday, you told this House that the long overdue Tiger Brennan Drive upgrade was the federal government’s fault because they will not cover half the project costs blowout. The costs have blown out because the project is two years overdue, which is your fault, not the federal government’s. You have $10m of headworks in the waterfront, a speculative land development, when land development projects are not a core function of government. Road construction, especially for Palmerston residents in this case, is. Why is your contractual obligation to your consortium partners more important than the people of Palmerston who are forced to drive along a redundant road every day to get to work?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I would have thought I made this plain in spades yesterday. I am just amazed that the opposition will go back to this question. It was obvious from the article in the Northern Territory News that they picked up on what is going on here as well.
Mr Mills: I drive that road, so do these two members.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: The Commonwealth government is sitting on a $12bn surplus, and yet they refuse to invest in these road projects all around Australia. It is causing disquiet in all the states and territories. The Northern Territory is not the only place where this is going on. It is meanness on the part of the federal government …
Mr Mills interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: … they are looking to an election next year. They are looking to buy off voters with tax cuts, further tax cuts …
Mr Mills interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Blain, order!
Dr BURNS: … instead of investing in major projects.
Mr Mills interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Blain!
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, it is just nave for the member for Blain to say: ‘Well, this project was proposed two years ago. It should have happened on the day that it was proposed’. These projects require very complex …
Mr Mills interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Blain!
Dr BURNS: … and detailed engineering studies and scoping studies. They do not happen overnight. That is something I have learnt as Infrastructure minister. These projects have a time line, and this is happening all around Australia. It is not surprising that the costs have escalated. They have escalated everywhere around Australia, and the federal government refuses to meet its fair share of projects, even those projects that the Commonwealth government is funding 100%.
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Just to assist this whole process, can I provide a possible solution?
Madam SPEAKER: No, you cannot.
Mr Mills: Can you build a road halfway to Tivendale? Build it to Tivendale.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Blain! Member for Blain, resume your seat. That is not a point of order. Resume your seat.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, even on those projects such as the Victoria River Highway, it is a national road and there are projects out there that are supposed to be 100% Commonwealth, the Commonwealth has made it plain that any escalations in costs will have to be borne by the Northern Territory. It is putting us in a very bad position. It is an important project. I am just hoping a Labor government will be voted in next year to help us with that particular project, and they will pay their fair share – not like this crowd over here.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
____________________
Distinguished Visitor
Mr Maurice Rioli
Mr Maurice Rioli
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the former member for Arafura, Mr Maurice Rioli. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
_____________________
CDEP – Proposed Changes to Scheme
Ms ANDERSON to MINISTER for REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Changes to CDEP will have a huge impact on the people in my electorate of Macdonnell. Can the minister advise the House of any recent developments in this area?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Macdonnell for her question. She is very keen, as I am, to see much improved job outcomes for the people of Central Australia, her electorate and, for all our remote communities across the Northern Territory .
I became aware today of some concerning advice that I have in regard to the Commonwealth’s implementation of its CDEP reforms in the Alice Springs area.
Mr Mills: Oh, blame the feds again.
Mr HENDERSON: The member for Blain says: ‘Blame the feds’. I remind the member for Blain that CDEP is actually a federal program. It is not a Northern Territory government program, …
Mr Mills: Yes. They are to blame for Tiger Brennan. They are to blame for the nuclear dump.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Blain!
Mr HENDERSON: It is a federal program; it is not our program.
This is a government that has said to the Commonwealth that, ‘we want to work with you to get better employment outcomes for Aboriginal people across the Territory’. When I was initially given carriage of this portfolio, I wrote to the federal minister about this, I have spoken to him about this, saying that we have to tread carefully, we have to work community by community with full consultation with communities affected. We cannot have unintended consequences across the Northern Territory. There are no template solutions or quick fixes to the issues of getting Aboriginal people into the permanent workforce and, on face value, they agreed to work with us to achieve that end.
I am advised that a senior Commonwealth officer recently told a forum in Central Australia that the Commonwealth plans for localities with people on CDEP, to have their remote area exemptions lifted. Any community within a 90 minute drive of Alice Springs will have the remote area exemptions lifted. What that would mean is that all of those people would have to get jobs, and opportunities for jobs are mostly in Alice Springs. The jobs are not there on those communities. His advice at the forum is that there are 1200 people on CDEP now within 90 minutes of Alice Springs, and hundreds of those people are on welfare benefits.
This is a pretty alarming turn of events, where the most senior Commonwealth official in Central Australia has said the remote area exemptions are going to be lifted before the end of the year, which means that those people will have to be actively seeking work. We know, in spite of all of the efforts that this government is doing in working with communities such as Hermannsburg, Santa Teresa, Wallace Rockhole, Titjikala and Amoonguna - he also mentioned Ti Tree, and you would have to be driving pretty flat out to get from Ti Tree to Alice in less than 20 minutes – there are no jobs in those communities. However, he did say that there are thousands of unfilled jobs in Alice Springs.
This is a recipe for disaster. If the Commonwealth government, just before Christmas, lifts the remote area exemptions and it will force people to look for work, because the only place that work might be available is Alice Springs. The reality is: what are people going to do for training to get them job ready for the work that is available? What are the accommodation requirements in Alice Springs? It is bursting at the seams at the moment.
I advise the House that I have written to the Commonwealth minister today, urging him to ensure that this crazed plan does not occur. This is a government that still wants to work with the Commonwealth, community by community, consulting with the community to develop employment opportunities, on communities as well as in our regional towns. Not a blanket template, one size fits all approach to this, which would have significantly bad outcomes for the individuals and communities concerned, and, I believe, for Alice Springs.
Madam Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Written Question Paper.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016