2004-11-30
Darwin City Waterfront Project – CLP Blueprint
Mr MILLS to CHIEF MINISTER
This is the CLP’s blueprint for the integrated development of the Darwin Wharf Precinct that was endorsed by your economic summit in 2001 as the highest priority for infrastructure development in Darwin. This blueprint was the result of 18 months of consultation with Territorians, and it had their support. Given the public outcry against the way you intend to develop the wharf precinct, will you now admit that you have been foolish in disregarding the CLP’s plans?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I welcome the question on the waterfront. In November 2001, the Economic Development Summit gave, as a priority, the development of the waterfront. For the Opposition Leader to hold up the CLP’s planning document and say, ‘This is how the waterfront was to be developed’, is stretching the truth quite a way.
We have a proposal in front of Territorians that is a most exciting proposal. It is $1bn-worth of development on our waterfront. It is a proposal for 11 years of civil construction work, of creating new opportunities for Territorians, for Darwinians, in a development that will complement what we currently have in our CBD, as an adjunct to it. It is a very exciting proposal. On the day that I first gave the details, through a media conference, what we said about what was going to be involved in the waterfront is exactly as we have said.
The Opposition Leader has been absolutely right in this, accusing government of dishonesty about what we put out - absolute rubbish! What we said, on that first day when we put the description out - and what has then translated to the model and has gone to Territorians - is exactly as we are going to go ahead, with one minor change, which will be to do with the hotel and car park which is near the escarpment. That is something that was identified as an issue to deal with, and we are dealing with that. However, where the high-rise is placed - that is what I and the government architect spoke about on the first day - at the end of the fingers on the developments going into the water, we talked about having increased heights there. That is what I spoke about on the first day, and that is what is represented in the model - absolutely accurate.
Really, what is at the heart of the opposition’s criticism here is that they do not support the project. They are like termites, they are trying to chip away at it, trying to eat into it. They should come out and be honest, like the Opposition Leader was on 8TopFM in the Greek radio program, when he said he did not even like the project.
This is a project for Territorians, done with a lot of consultation. If we are going to look at heights, somehow or other the Opposition Leader is saying that the project that was put together under the CLP government is somehow the icon of how we should develop. The guide to heights of buildings and structures, 1999, as part of the CBD development of this waterfront, allowed for maximum height, without demonstrated special merit, of 120 m - a whole area ...
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: It is hard to see the …
Mr Dunham interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, order!
Mr BURKE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Chief Minister cannot be allowed to get away with blatant lies to Territorians.
Madam SPEAKER: You cannot accuse …
Mr BURKE: She knows that the height definitions …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, I heard it.
Mr BURKE: … for the wharf precinct are quite different to the height definitions for the CBD. She is quoting from …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Brennan …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: No, that is not a point of order. You cannot accuse the Chief Minister, as you just did, without substantive motion. I ask you to withdraw.
Mr BURKE: Well, she is going to get a substantive motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Stand up and withdraw.
Mr BURKE: Withdraw what, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: The accusation that she is lying. That is what you started off with, member for Brennan. Just withdraw.
Mr BURKE: I withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: I did not hear you.
Mr BURKE: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, nice and clear.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, I make this point about heights because that is something that the opposition is not telling the facts about. When the member for Brennan says I am not being accurate about what was proposed by the previous government for the waterfront; this is about the waterfront – absolutely. At the waterfront, in the Fort Hill area, under your previous planning, we had a whole section, all coloured here in nice beige, of 120 m height - 40 storeys - and other areas of 55 m high could go higher if you wanted.
This is such an exciting proposal that it is disappointing to hear the negativity from the opposition, which they think is good political strategy. It is good political strategy from them to knock a project of a $1bn, something that has really excited our community, that provides a convention centre, an exhibition space, new residential developments, and new recreation - 40% - not in the proposal that we had from the previous space …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Chief Minister is referring to that document. Could she be so kind as to table it, please.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, she can when she finishes her question.
Ms MARTIN: You have it in the document in front of you.
Mr Henderson: Your own document.
Ms MARTIN: You have it in your own document.
Mr Elferink: I want what you have on the table.
Madam SPEAKER: When you have finished your answer, Chief Minister, please table it.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, at the end of Question Time, I am happy to make a copy and we will have it tabled.
Let us be honest about what the opposition is trying to do. They are trying to knock jobs, business opportunities, and an important development for Darwin’s future. I say: ‘Stop fiddling around the edges on this. Come out and say what you mean: that you do not support it’.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The request was specifically for the document she was referring to, not a copy of it. Could she table the copy that she is referring to?
Madam SPEAKER: The Chief Minister requested you to wait until after Question Time because, no doubt, she feels there may be some more questions. You can have it then.
Bootu Creek Mine - Railway Freight
Mr McADAM to CHIEF MINISTER
The Adelaide to Darwin railway has had major success in attracting freight in its first year of operation. Can you please inform the House what the Bootu Creek mine will mean for the railway, East Arm Port, and the community of Tennant Creek?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, it is an important question from the member for Barkly, and something he has made a great contribution towards seeing achieved. There was an announcement this morning that the Bootu Creek mine, 100 km or so north of Tennant Creek, is going to go ahead. There will be a ceremony with traditional owners next week, on 10 December.
It is a manganese mine and, in the first instance, the manganese will be exported to China. The manganese will leave the mine and go via 58 km of road that is already under construction, to the rail, by rail to Darwin, and by ship from Darwin to China. This is a real demonstration of our new trade route going to work.
The mine itself will mean 80-plus jobs, a $30m capital investment towards getting it going and a boost to our exports of $70m per year. For the community of Tennant Creek, already there are local jobs. Contractors have been employed on the site, and there are business opportunities on the supply side for the Bootu Creek mine.
In terms of rail activity - this is very important - there will be 600 000 tonnes of manganese going from the mine at Bootu Creek to the Port of Darwin every year. What that means in extra trains is three to four dedicated extra trains on the rail each week. If you look at what that does to the rail, currently they have moved something like 450 000 tonnes in less than a year. We are more than doubling that with 600 000 tonnes of manganese going on the rail. This really demonstrates the importance of our investment in rail as, what was previously marginal is now viable, because we have reduced those costs of moving the manganese by rail - very important.
We have increased activity on the rail, in the Tennant Creek region and, importantly, at the port. To get that ore to China, this now means one to two bulk carrier ships coming to the Port of Darwin each month and, to support that operation, a government investment of $11.2m on a new bulk loading facility. That is a very important component of having this happen. That bulk loading facility is currently going to design.
The official opening of the mine will take place on 10 December. In the third quarter next year, the mine should be operational. So, look out trade route: we have increased activity on the rail and on the port. What it means is more jobs and more business opportunities. It certainly says that the Territory's investment in this new trade route has been a winner. Thank you, Bootu Creek.
Madam SPEAKER: And certainly good news for Olympia Resources with their garnet mining in Alice Springs
Darwin City Waterfront Project – Building Height
Mr MILLS to CHIEF MINISTER
The CLP’s statement of intent for the wharf precinct was to develop it as a primary focus for leisure and entertainment activities. Permanent residential was deemed to be non-compatible, and building heights were to be limited to 15 m below the escarpment. You intend to push through a planning scheme amendment to allow construction of buildings that, generally, in the central wharf precinct area will be 36.5 m AHD and 50.9 m AHD. Given that the maximum height of the escarpment is only 25 m, how do you expect Territorians to have any belief in your plans for the wharf precinct development when you are clearly not telling the truth?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I refer to my previous answer: we are telling the truth. The facts that are represented by the model - and I certainly hope the Opposition Leader went to the Mall and had a look at the model. How can he stand in here and spout such rubbish, if he actually looked at the model and understood what it was doing?
Ninety percent of the proposal at the waterfront is either at escarpment level or below – 90% of the buildings. We made no pretence that everything would be below escarpment level. There are three quite significant high-rise to east of the waterfront on that Stokes Hill area, there is one in the Fort Hill area of 11 storeys, and there are also higher buildings of 11 storeys at the end of those fingers, at the piers going into the water.
Can I point out to the Leader of the Opposition that the proposal that they had for the waterfront, was never taken to a project. We came to government and activated the waterfront. We presented a different kind of proposal there; we have a convention centre as the trigger for that development. It is certainly a development that has been warmly welcomed. It is one that will be dynamic and will really attract Darwin people to go there. One of the attractants is the fact that 40% of it will be open space; it will be recreation space for local people. It is a very exciting and forward-looking development.
While we are talking about escarpment, the official height of the escarpment is 27.5 m, as defined by the Lands department.
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: We have had the testing done, it is 27.5 m. I say again that it is very important that the Opposition Leader comes into this House and gets his facts right. Ninety percent …
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The fact is the height of the escarpment is 16 …
Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.
Ms MARTIN: It is not a point of order.
Mr Mills: How about the Chief Minister getting her facts straight.
Madam SPEAKER: Ninety percent of the waterfront will be on or under the height of the escarpment. We have been very clear about what will be above that. When you listen to someone like the government architect, Bob Nation, talk about the proposal, he is very clear on the way it has captured those viewing corridors, combined high rise in one area with open space in another, and how we have the best of both worlds. We have a very exciting project and most Territorians are very proud of it.
V8 Supercars
Ms LAWRIE to CHIEF MINISTER
Territorians absolutely love their V8 Supercars and the race is incredibly important to our great lifestyle and, indeed, our local economy. Can you advise the Assembly of any recent developments securing this fantastic event?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, yes I can. At lunchtime at SKYCITY Casino, there was the official marking of the new contract with AVESCO to extend the V8s until 2012, which is great news for Territorians. We would like to see it celebrated in this House instead of the scowls on the other side of the House.
We had a five-year contract that was running out in 2007. We have replaced that with an eight-year contract that takes us from 2005 to 2012. That additional five years will be at a cost of around $5m - every cent worthwhile.
The event next year is from 1 to 3 July. We expect to be able to top the number of 40 000 Territorians and visitors who attended those three days this year. We reckon we can build on that. It is an event that is a lot of fun; it is great entertainment for people.
When you look at the flow-on to our economy, it is significant in dollars. The assessment we have done shows that it adds about $11m nett to our economy each year, and that ranges from accommodation through to caterers, pubs and restaurants. I saw today at the media conference at SKYCITY where Holden and Ford head butt. That head butting was already happening. Interestingly, though, every Territorian seems to suddenly become a Ford or Holden aficionado. Those battles you hear as you walk around the V8s of who is going to win between the Fords and Holden are quite heated, and are typified in the personas of Mark Skaife and Marcos Ambrose.
Also announced today was the new premier naming sponsor, and I congratulate SKYCITY for their belief in the event and their contribution to our community. SKYCITY has two years of being the naming sponsor, and then another three years if that works for both parties.
Mr Burke: How much are they contributing?
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, the ignorance of the former Leader of the Opposition who knows they are not the kind of details to be discussed. I have been very up-front. I said the contribution by taxpayers is $5m. That is what I am interested in, and that is what I will talk about.
The casino has been a very active and long-time supporter of the event, and I congratulate them for moving it one step forward to being the main sponsor. In July next year, Darwin, again, will be showcased. Network 10 does the coverage. It goes to 80 countries, and something like 600 million people get a chance to visit Darwin through their television screens and see what is a great race.
Home Birthing Service
Mr WOOD to MINISTER for HEALTH
Madam Speaker, I ask this question on behalf of yourself, as the member for Braitling. This morning, a petition was tabled with 1144 signatures indicating the level of support and concern for the future of a continuing home birthing service.
You have given assurance that independent midwives will be indemnified through the Department of Health as quickly as possible – your words. The department representative dealing with this issue has told a midwife in Alice Springs that it will take six months. Can you give reassurance to those midwives that the process will be streamlined and mothers will be no longer denied the choice of a home birth?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for the question. I can clarify this. Whether that statement was made to Theo Allan or not, it is certainly not what is going to be happening. I have met with my CEO and made it very clear to him that the procedure now is to get the protocols established between the health service and the midwives who intend to provide home birthing support. Once those protocols are established, the home birthing program can commence. The starting point for that is both the protocols that are available from the National College of Midwifery and those currently being used in Western Australia for a similar program, so we not having to start from scratch.
I cannot give an actual day that it will start; however, all I can say is that work has commenced on settling those protocols. I would be very disappointed if the program was not working late this year or very early next year at the latest. We do not want to hold this process up. We know there are pregnant women who want to give birth at home. We will make sure that the work is completed as quickly as possible. There is no other agenda in this; it is simply to set the safety protocols in place to guarantee that there is an appropriate transfer of the mother and baby to a higher level of care if that is indicated by the factors accompanying the birth.
Ms Carney: Why did you say this morning that you had fixed it when you had not?
Dr TOYNE: Oh, will you behave?
Madam SPEAKER: Well, let us hope that we do get an answer quickly then.
Darwin City Waterfront Project – Building Height
Mr MILLS to CHIEF MINISTER
Former Labor politician and town planner, June D’Rozario, in opposing your plans for the Darwin waterfront development, accused you of: ‘a complete and shameless abrogation of every documented promise given by government’. Is it not true that June D’Rozario has made these comments because you broke your promise and have abandoned the building height restrictions that were put in place by the CLP for this development under the Central Darwin Planning and Land Use Objectives documents? Is it not true that your own SOCOM report found that all participants in the public consultation supported the principle of having no buildings exceeding the central part of the escarpment? Why have you shamelessly abrogated your promises that no building on the development would exceed the level of the escarpment?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, again, I say to the Leader of the Opposition: stop coming in here and making assertions that were not what government said. Let me deal with what June D’Rozario has said, and it refers back to the answer I gave first in Question Time, about the hotel and car parking development that is in front of Bridgeport. I have been quite up-front about that.
Part of the reason we are having a public consultation period is to identify whether there are issues that need to be dealt with ...
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: I ask the Opposition Leader, if he asks a question – and it was a multifaceted question; it had about five different parts to it – that he give me a chance to answer it. Okay? If you do not want to have the question answered …
Mr Mills: Oh, get on with it!
Ms MARTIN: We had public consultation, we put out the proposal from the preferred developer, and it is a very exciting one. However, part of that time for public consultation - without the statutory process, which we are going through with some development applications now - was to get community feedback. Very early on in that …
Mr Burke: Oh, so the plan changed, did it? You just told us the plan was locked in concrete.
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: It would be nice if the Chief Minister could give her reply without interruption.
Ms MARTIN: It would be nice if the opposition just came out and said they do not want to see this project go ahead, because that would be honest. That would be good and honest: they do not want to see the jobs and they do not want to see the opportunity for Darwin development.
We have a public consultation process which gives our community a real chance to look at the model and the information and give us feedback. Very quickly in that time. it was identified that there was an issue with how the hotel was positioned in relation to Bridgeport. Immediately, we had the developers and officers from government go in and start talking to the Bridgeport residents. There have been about five meetings; there was one yesterday afternoon, and June D’Rozario was part of that – and those discussions are ongoing. There has been some heated response over that, and we have heard some of that aired publicly.
However, it is an issue that we identified very quickly, because we had the opportunity to get information out to the community. We are looking at how we can maximise the outlook from the Bridgeport units on the lower level. Interestingly enough, those two units that are at the heart of this are actually below escarpment level. However, those discussions are ongoing and I can understand the anger. That is part of why we are having consultations. We have had those broad consultations, we now have the statutory ones. Part of that went out last Friday to development applications.
It is interesting, from the opposition’s point of view that, over the last month or so, they have bagged government for saying that glossy brochures and all this information was going out to the community, and now we are being accused of not telling the community what we are doing. You cannot have it both ways. It smells of hypocrisy, and the hypocrisy is all with the opposition.
Sensis Business Survey
Mrs AAGAARD to MINISTER for BUSINESS and INDUSTRY
Can you please advise the Assembly on the results of the recent Sensis survey about business conditions in the Northern Territory?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nightcliff for her question. I believe all Territorians will welcome the positive news in the Sensis Business Index released today that shows that Territory businesses are the most profitable in the country, with very strong profit growth. We have said that the economy has turned the corner. All of the …
Mr Dunham: That must be why the mall is booming!
Mr HENDERSON: The member for Drysdale again, Madam Speaker! He just cannot abide good news.
Mr Dunham: That must be why the mall is just going gangbusters! It must be why you cannot get a shop in the mall. No vacancies there, cobber!
Mr HENDERSON: The member for Drysdale just cannot abide good news. If is it good news, he opens his mouth and wants to talk it down.
Mr Dunham: Tell us about ABS. Oh no, sorry, cannot trust ABS!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, cease! Just cease.
Mr HENDERSON: He must have had a terrible childhood, Madam Speaker.
All Territorians - bar the member for Drysdale - would have welcomed the positive news that the Territory economy has turned the corner, and that Territory business is picking up and has posted the strongest profit results in the nation. In some sectors, there are some people who are still doing it tough. However, by and large, things have really picked up. We can see construction activity across the Northern Territory absolutely booming; there is construction going on everywhere. In the last budget, the Territory government had record payroll tax cuts to further stimulate investment in the economy and employment. In the last quarter, we have seen the strongest employment growth in the country …
Dr Lim: How much did you collect in n stamp duty?
Mr Mills: A 49% increase in stamp duty take!
Mr HENDERSON: Again, the opposition just does not want to hear - do not want to listen.
Dr Lim: Highest taxing government the Territory has ever had.
Mr HENDERSON: The last economic observation we had from the Leader of the Opposition - and I know he does not get out very much these days - was just after the Territory budget when he said: ‘Look around you, the place is in ruins!’ Well, when I look around the Northern Territory, I do not see the Territory in ruins; I see businesses with confidence to invest. We have record capital investment in the Northern Territory at the moment, with projects like the Darwin LNG plant, the Alcan expansion, and the Darwin waterfront - a $1.2bn project that is going to provide jobs and employment opportunities for Territorians for the next 10 to 11 years, and all the opposition wants to do is to bag that particular project. There was a great announcement today regarding the Bootu Creek mine going ahead with $30m worth of capital investment and 80 jobs.
The Territory has turned the corner, the economy is moving ahead. The only people who would deny it are the opposition. If we look at the latest Northern Territory Real Estate Institute analysis, September 2004 quarter:
- Growing, growing and still growing. The Northern Territory real estate industry reached a milestone in 2003-04 financial year with over $1bn in real estate sales. This is an increase of nearly $400m, as the recorded sales for 2002-03 were $644m.
The only people who are talking down the economy are the opposition. The only people with no faith in the Territory are the opposition. This is being shown as evident today as they bag the fabulous waterfront redevelopment to a value of $1.2bn worth of capital injection and jobs for Territorians for many years to come.
Darwin City Waterfront Project – Model Accuracy of Building Numbers
Mr MILLS to CHIEF MINISTER
Is the model on public display a true and accurate representation of exactly what will be built on the city waterfront development? What is the total number of buildings planned to be built over the life of the development?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I have not been down and counted all the buildings. I can give you an idea of what is there. I keep on getting, from these questions that the Opposition Leader has not actually been down and had a look. The Opposition Leader asked for a briefing from the preferred developers, which was inappropriate and he should have understood that, because those are commercial negotiations that are happening, quite appropriately.
One of the members of that consortium has been very critical of the attitude being displayed by the opposition, and of the bagging of the project that we have seen over the last week - orchestrated largely by the opposition. It was good to see Steve Margetic come out on behalf of Sitzlers and say: ‘This is a great tropical project and one that will really benefit the Territory’. How many buildings are there?
Mr Dunham: And is the model accurate?
Ms MARTIN: The model is accurate – to one in 500. I also say that …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, just cease. Member for Drysdale, you are on a warning! We have put up with your persistent interjections for long enough.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, the model is accurate. It has been verified in its accuracy, both by the architects, Hassells, who are responsible for its design, and also by someone with the qualifications to do it – I have forgotten the terminology for that.
Importantly, is this public consultation process and, as I said in my last answer, the hotel and car park that are in front of the Bridgeport development below the escarpment is being discussed. Therefore, if you are going to ask to me if it is absolutely accurate and is this what will happen, no, there are bits that are being discussed, and I have been quite up-front about that. However, what you see in the model is the shape of the proposed development.
I say to the Opposition Leader: we have a convention and exhibition centre there to the east of the waterfront area. The exhibition centre is 4000 m2 in space, and the plenary session for the convention centre is 1500 people. That is that building. Towards Stokes Hill …
Mr Elferink: That is building No 1, what else is there?
Ms MARTIN: … there is a restaurant which is probably going to be some kind of seafood restaurant. Coming back, we have two enclosed pools, a beach, a wave pool …
Mr Elferink: Is that two or three buildings?
Ms MARTIN: … we have a hotel and car park …
Mr Baldwin: That is three.
Ms MARTIN: On the waterfront there is the Darwin Experience and there is a restaurant next to that.
Members: Four, five.
Ms MARTIN: What is the point of this? Showing you how ridiculous it is that you should come in here and ask me to detail all the buildings.
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: I will keep going. I am happy to keep going. We are just talking about Stage 1. I will just give you Stage 1. We are about halfway through it now.
There is the elevated footpath to the Avenue of Honour, which takes you through to the CBD. Then you have the first finger walk, which is residence, but also some professional suites and restaurants and, maybe, some shops to do with maritime activity. That, generally, is the shape of Stage 1.
I can go on to Stage 2, but going further into this is – you agree, Madam Speaker? - a fairly pointless exercise.
Madam SPEAKER: We are having very long answers.
Ms MARTIN: He did ask.
Madam SPEAKER: I know. I think we have had enough.
Ms MARTIN: Can I just say that the opposition should obtain the information that we are making readily available.
Madam SPEAKER: That is enough.
Power and Water – Billing Problems
Mr WOOD to MINISTER for ESSENTIAL SERVICES
Recently, Power and Water installed a new computer system for billing. Since then, one supermarket owner has been receiving three-monthly bills instead of the usual one-monthly. Another local business, Howard Springs Caravan Park, has received an $81 000 three-monthly account when their normal 12-monthly bill is $73 000. The computer also informed them that they were the owners of another property in Cavenagh Street which, in fact, belonged to Power and Water. All accounts have also had their due dates printed as the 30 August 2004, regardless of the real date they were issued.
Could you please say if the new computer system was properly tested before it replaced the old system? Is the new system capable of producing monthly accounts? How much did the new system cost Power and Water? What is Power and Water doing to fix the problems so that small businesses are not stuffed around any longer?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I welcome the question from the member for Nelson. The supermarket owner he refers to approached me directly. I heard what that person had to say and I made inquiries with Power and Water.
The long and short of it is, yes, there is a new computer system. It is a unique system in terms of utilities in Australia. I am advised that most of the billing systems within Australia for utilities just bill one particular element, whether it is water, power, or whatever. However, this bills the total utilities that Power and Water cover.
There have been some teething problems. However, I am assured, in relation to businesses that are receiving three-monthly notices, that that will soon be rectified and that they will receive a one-monthly notice. I am also assured by Power and Water that there have been some issues of cleaning up data, and that is proceeding. Basically, they have confidence in the billing system.
Dental Service in Schools
Mr BONSON to MINISTER for HEALTH
Would you please inform the House what this government is doing to improve dental services for Territory school children?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question. It is a good follow-up to my colleague’s mention of teething problems.
In 1999, the Loan Report was commissioned by the CLP. I am sure the members for Brennan and Drysdale would know all about that. After all these years, we have had not only a good response to the Loan Report, but a very comprehensive response to the needs of our kids to get proper dental screening and treatment.
We are not simply contracting the service back to a smaller network, as the Loan Report indicated, but we are going to all of the 41 schools and giving a high-quality service to each one of them. Thirty-six of them are going to have their own fixed facilities on campus, and will be visited by dental therapists who will carry out the screening and initial treatment programs. In the case of three schools - Howard Springs, Alawa and Millner - a mobile unit will park in the grounds of the schools and offer the service, again, in a very high-quality environment. Marrara Christian School and St Paul’s will have access to free and safe services in Karama and Nightcliff Primary Schools respectively.
This is a really important example of where Health and Education, by working together, can obtain the best results for our kids. We all know the relationship between oral health and good health later in life. It is very important for both parents and kids to know that they are going to have this service properly provided for them during their schooling.
On 24 November, I had the great pleasure of going with my colleague, the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, and launching this new and revitalised $1.7m service around our schools. This is in addition to the $1.6m of extra recurrent funding that is already committed in the 2003 budget to oral services, generally, in the Northern Territory.
Parents should rest assured that we, as a government - in contrast to the last one - looked at this issue with serious responsibility. We are now providing a high-quality service that our kids and parents expect.
Darwin City Waterfront Project – Building Height
Mr MILLS to CHIEF MINISTER
In this advertisement it says: ‘Let us get the right view on the waterfront development’. You state that 11 buildings, representing 10% of the development, will exceed the level of the escarpment. Is that correct?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, finally, the Opposition Leader has it right. Yes.
Administrative Positions in Schools - Review
Mr KIELY to MINISTER for EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION and TRAINING
This question is very relevant to the administration workers at Anula School and all the schools in Sanderson.
Mr Dunham: And a big cheerio to mum and dad. Just spit it out, mate.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Drysdale, did I not give you a warning?
Mr DUNHAM: You did, Madam Speaker.
Mr KIELY: Without interruption, minister, can you advise the House of the outcomes of the review of administration positions in schools?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question as it allows me to put on the record the outcome of the job evaluation review that came out of an agreement and a commitment to the unions in the last round of the EBA. It showed that a range of administrative positions were performing workloads that did not match their position level, generally as a result of increased devolution that had come into the school structures.
It was recommended, in the end, that 370 of the 433 administrative staff within the scope of the review needed to have an increase to their job level. The appropriate levels of positions evaluated are: Literacy Workers at AO1; Library Assistants in primary schools at A02; Preschool Assistants A02; Classroom-based Support Officers A02; Office-based Support Officers A02; Special Needs Support Officers, Mainstream School A03; Special Needs Support Officers, Special School A03; Administration Manager, Group School A05; Administration Manager, Remote Schools CEC A05; Administration Manager, primary school – AO5; Administration Manager, large secondary – AO7; Administration Manager, other secondary school - AO6.
The majority of these increases occur with 235 AO1 staff increasing to AO2 level, with a salary increase of around $475 per annum.
The review was sent to Cabinet recently, which did not hesitate to tick off the funding required to support these pay increases for these important positions. It is backdated to 27 January 2004, and will get into the pay packets early next year. It is around $1.2m this year, rising to $2.1m by 2008-09.
It is important recognition of the valuable work done by these administrative staff in our schools. They are the people in the front office who keep the schools ticking over. I, and Cabinet, was pleased to be able to facilitate that increase. I hope the staff see this rise as a due and proper recognition for their very valuable work.
Darwin City Waterfront Project - Building Height
Mr MILLS to CHIEF MINISTER
You have just confirmed that 11 buildings on your advertisement represent 10% of all the buildings in the waterfront development. Can you now confirm that there are 99 buildings that do not rise above the escarpment?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, what I cannot understand is what the Opposition Leader is trying to achieve here.
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: No, no. The Opposition Leader is trying to bag the project. He is saying to our Winnellie businesses, our subbies, for the next decade around Darwin, that the opposition does not support the redevelopment of the waterfront. The Opposition Leader came in here and said: ‘We were going to do it when we were in government. We had an idea; we never had more than an idea. Why aren’t you doing ours?’ This is a really childish and immature approach.
You had ideas, they came to nothing. We went through a new process, with a new concept, and this is what is out there for public consultation. Every building on the waterfront will go through a development application process - the proper, statutory process. I say again: every building on the waterfront will go through that development application process.
Ms Carter: A new scheme.
Ms MARTIN: We have a new scheme, and we have a development application process. This is a preferred tenderer proposal. We have continuing discussions to go through the complexities. What is agreed through the development application process and these discussions with the developer, Darwin Cove, will then be part of the contract at the end. The details of that will be publicly known - the taxpayers’ dollars, the return to government will be known.
It is a very exciting project. Builders, subbies and businesses in Darwin all embrace this project. The only ones who are nitpicking and pretending that, somehow, government is not telling the truth about it is the opposition - and they are wrong.
NT Jobs Plan – Employer Incentives
Mrs AAGAARD to MINISTER for EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION and TRAINING
Can you please advise the House on the take-up of employer incentives for apprentices and trainees under the Jobs Plan?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nightcliff. I am always happy to talk about our Jobs Plan, because it has been a great innovation and success. The Jobs Plan contains an employer initiative scheme to encourage and support the employment and training of additional apprentices and trainees in specific industry and business sectors. We provided $1.5m over three years for apprenticeship/traineeship in those skills shortage trade areas; $2.25m over three years for the small business sector; and $1m in incentives over three years to local government community councils.
The first round ran from 1 February 2004 to 1 October 2004, and the second round kicked off on 4 October 2004.
Last week, I visited a business that had taken on the 100th apprentice under the scheme. I put on the record my congratulations to Jeffrey Osborne. He is an adult apprentice undertaking a cabinet-making apprenticeship with Peter Jackson of PA Jackson Cabinet Maker. A terrific workshop, a great little work force and a good boss to work for; getting along very well and doing a great job. They cannot scratch themselves for the amount of work coming through the door. Well done to Peter Jackson and Jeffrey Osborne.
Everyone has been a winner with the Jobs Plan - business, apprentices and the Territory overall. The figures show there has been a take-up of 100 traditional trade employer incentives, worth $7700 each, under the Skills Shortage Trades Employer Inventive Scheme; 205 employer incentives, which are worth $2200 each, to business under the Small Business Employer Incentive Scheme; and 20 employer incentives worth $4400 each under the Local Government Community Council Employer Incentive Scheme. We added additional occupations to the Skills Shortage Trades Incentives eligibility criteria for the second round, picking up aero skills, cabinet-making and baking, and further employer incentives under the Jobs Plan will come through in 2005.
Advice indicates a strong uptake of apprenticeships and traineeships in 2004. We understand the total number of apprentices and trainees in training at the moment is over 2900, with approximately 2200 of those commencing this year in 2004 - 325 of those under the Jobs Plan. Therefore, it is between a 20% to 30% increase on the effort occurring before we came to government. We are well on track to meet our commitment of 7000 new apprentices over the lifespan of the first Jobs Plan. I commend John Hassed and his team at Employment and Training for the attention to detail and the work they do around the Jobs Plan.
Darwin City Waterfront Project – Building Height
Mr MILLS to CHIEF MINISTER
In the interests of getting the right view on the waterfront development, if you do you sums, you say that 10% of these buildings are above the escarpment - there are 11 of them. Therefore, there are 99 that are not. Add the other 11 and that makes 110. There are 110 buildings on this advertisement, and the title of it says: ‘Let us get the right view’. There are 110, using plan maths. I went across to the display that you have in the mall, the only comprehensive briefing I was able to get with your permission …
Madam SPEAKER: Your question, Leader of the Opposition.
Mr MILLS: I counted the buildings – a true and accurate record over there – there are only 48 buildings represented on this true and accurate balsa wood model. Do you still stand by the accuracy of this advertisement, or do you actually know how many buildings are being planned?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, 90% of the building footprint of what will be in the waterfront redevelopment will be at escarpment level or below. The opposition is trying to damage the whole waterfront proposal. What you see when you actually go down to the shop and look at the model - if you get down on your knees and have a look at what is above – that is an accurate portrayal of the footprint of what will be built - 90% of the footprint of what will be built.
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: You despair with the opposition! What we have is an exciting proposal for Darwin. If you take a look at a document such as the environmental impact statement, interestingly enough – have a look at the documentation associated with it - we are encouraging diversity in building mass and heights to avoid a monotonous harbour front image. It is envisaged that buildings in particular areas will generally not exceed the height of the escarpment …
Members interjecting.
Ms MARTIN: It is not encouraged generally! That is what we have done. We were very clear about protecting the escarpment and those views from the escarpment, which is why, all along, we very clearly said there will be three high-rise on the east perimeter. There will be one – and they are high, but not as high as the CLP’s proposal. We are only at 30 floors; they were at 40 floors. We have identified those and, again, honestly and accurately, identified in the map here in front of you.
When I was struggling to remember who had certified the model, it was a licensed surveyor who said that the model you have of the waterfront is accurate.
Mr Mills: There is 110 over here, and 48 over there.
Ms MARTIN: Forty percent of the waterfront will be public space - if you listened! It will be exciting recreation for Darwinians. We can go to restaurants, we can swim, there is a seawall, you can windsurf in safety. You can go to the wave pool. I am sure that the churlish Leader of the Opposition will never go to the wave pool because, in principle, he does not support the waterfront development.
We have been accurate about this. The government architect, whose job it is to make comment on proposals such as this, has applauded the work done by the proposed developers. He has said Darwin Cove Consortium has looked at view corridors as creating an exciting tropical proposal unique to Darwin. And all we can get from the churlish, anti-development opposition is ‘we don’t like it, we are going to bag it. We are going to bag the jobs, we are going to bag the opportunities for Darwin and we are going to pick at everything trying to demonstrate that something is wrong and there is something you have not been honest about’.
Well, let me say, this is a very exciting project for Darwin’s future and I look forward to 10 years when I can see it realised.
Darwin City Waterfront Project – Government Contribution
Mr WOOD to CHIEF MINISTER
I also support the waterfront development. However, as we are dealing with a large amount of public land I believe it needs to come under some scrutiny.
Could you please explain what is the total value in cash, land or in-kind the Northern Territory government is or will be contributing to this project? Is the residential land component of this development to be given away or sold to developers? If the deal to build a convention centre is tied up with handing over public land to developers, why didn’t the government simply sell the land on the open market as it has done in other parts of Darwin, and use the money to build a convention centre itself?
Madam SPEAKER: A rather lengthy question.
ANSWER
A very lengthy question. Madam Speaker, let us deal with the first bit of the member for Nelson’s question: what cash? We have been very up-front about that all along, saying that our contribution - taxpayers’ contribution - to an important development like the convention and exhibition centre was around $100m. That was for the convention centre and some associated infrastructure. That is what we have said is the cash component.
The land is our contribution to this development, but we will be getting a return on that. Quite properly, those are the negotiations that are going on at the current time. As I said, we are putting the land into the waterfront redevelopment. As I said to an earlier question, when all negotiations are complete I will make all this …
Mr Baldwin: You can tell us the value of the land, we own it.
Dr Lim: Haven’t you had a current valuation on it?
Ms MARTIN: It is interesting that the opposition, obviously, does not understand the details of these types of negotiations.
When we have completed – and I personally look forward to the completion of these negotiations. I hope our preferred developer becomes the developer. Then I will stand in this place and talk about all aspects of this. At this stage, what I am saying is, as the owner of the land, we are putting this asset into the project. That is the decision that we have made. In turn, the consortium will develop the site and provide some public infrastructure.
The development will provide a revenue stream back to government over the life of the project, based on an appropriate return for the value of the land which captures increasing land values as the development proceeds. As you can imagine, as this development proceeds, those land values will increase.
It is BOOT development for the convention and exhibition centre, which is a build, own, operate, and transfer, after 25 years, back to government. The other part is a development agreement. That is a commercial agreement with the preferred developer - which we hope we turn into actuality - to develop the land to an agreed plan that has been given the tick through the Development Consent Authority and our community, to provide significant public infrastructure, and also a return to government based on property values. That BOOT development is mix of a public/private partnership and also a development agreement – an ordinary commercial agreement - with a return to government.
As I said, once all the complex negotiations have been completed, I will give a full statement to parliament.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Question Paper.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016