2010-06-08
E. coli Levels in Darwin Harbour
Mr CHANDLER to MINISTER for NATURAL RESOURCES, ENVIRONMENT and HERITAGE, REFERRED to MINISTER for HEALTH
You will, hopefully, be aware of the recent reports of high E. coli levels in the water at East Point in Darwin Harbour. Can you tell the House when, prior to this most recent identification of high levels of E. coli, government officers - not council officers, government officers - conducted water quality testing at East Point, and the outcomes of these tests of water quality? Can you also tell the House why your government failed to close the beaches at East Point immediately upon becoming aware the high E. coli levels posed a risk to swimmers? Who is responsible for the pitiful, inadequate warning signs eventually erected at East Point?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Brennan for his question. Protecting the harbour is an absolute priority of this government, and our record stands way above the record of the opposition when it comes to the environment and protecting our harbour; there is no doubt about it.
This government is monitoring the health of the harbour. We will continue to do so, and we will soon have the best monitoring in place we have ever seen.
In my department, the Aquatic Health Unit regularly monitors the water quality of Darwin Harbour against nationally accepted indicators such as nutrient levels, pH and suspended solids. Water quality, as I said, is assessed against these guidelines set out in the Water Quality Objectives. This monitoring has been summarised and publicly reported last year in the harbour’s first-ever health report card. Overwhelmingly, the report card showed the health of the harbour is very good but, of course, it also picked up problems in and around Buffalo Creek, the results of which this government is determined to improve.
Regarding the specific question the member for Brennan asked, if high levels are found in our harbour and the beaches, then the public health level response is a matter for the health authorities. On that matter, your specific question should, therefore, be directed to the Minister for Health, to whom I will now hand over.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased the member has asked this question. I do not know if he is aware, but I used to be the Manager of Environmental Health in the Northern Territory from 1993 to 1997.
I recall very well, at that time I used to conduct regular sampling of all sea water. However, I was stopped doing that by an instruction following the ERC and the cut in budget for the Health department and the environmental health officers.
To give you an example of how the CLP cared about the health of Territorians, in 1995, a microorganism that can cause amoebic meningitis was detected at Manton Dam and I proceeded to close Manton Dam for recreation. I received a message from the minister’s office that I was not going to do that; I was going to leave it open. This is the legacy of the CLP.
It is unfortunate we have here someone who actually knows the history and the microbiology. What we found, despite your claims about pollution from the sewage outlets, is this pollution is localised. Further investigation by my officers discovered a number of septic tanks in the area, including the septic tanks …
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker!. I am curious as to how long the minister will get to respond to this. The clock has been stuck on 10 minutes for a long period of time.
Madam SPEAKER: No, we time them down here actually.
Mr VATSKALIS: We discovered a number of septic tanks are either substandard, or they do not work efficiently, or we cannot identify the trenches and where they go. In addition to that, most likely the pollution comes from stormwater drains that have been filled with water for a period of time without rain, and now the high tides are flushing them out. My department is continuing the investigation and, when we find the results, we will make them public.
Madam SPEAKER: I have just been advised that the clock is stuck. We have had a lot of trouble with these clocks in this parliament.
Supplementary Question –
Testing for E. coli Levels in Darwin Harbour
Testing for E. coli Levels in Darwin Harbour
Mr CHANDLER to MINISTER for NATURAL RESOURCES, ENVIRONMENT and HERITAGE, REFERRED to MINISTER for HEALTH
Dr Burns: Is this a supplementary, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, it is a supplementary.
Mr CHANDLER: Minister, when was the last time, and how often, are tests carried out on the harbour?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question. As I said previously, there are a number of people who undertake monitoring of the harbour. In terms of my department, the Aquatic Health Unit does regular monitoring. I am quite happy to take that question on notice and get back to you in detail.
Members interjecting.
Mr HAMPTON: In terms of the Aquatic Health Unit, I am happy to get back to you on those when they do the monitoring. I will hand over to my colleague, who can answer on behalf of his department.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, sampling of the sea water takes places under guidelines from the department of Health, and that relies upon the number of people using the beaches. At all these beaches, if there are more than 100 people, a sample is taken weekly; if 10 to 200 people, monthly and, if less than 10 people, at a greater interval. The Darwin City Council samples their lake …
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask the honourable member table the document from which he is reading. We need that detail.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, please pause. The time has expired. Minister, are you willing to table the document you were …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr VATSKALIS: I am happy to provide the information to the opposition because, obviously, they did not listen to what I had to say …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Minister! Minister! If you wish to speak, please stand. Are you willing to table the document you are speaking from?
Mr VATSKALIS: I am very happy to, Madam Speaker, because obviously the Leader of the Opposition did not want to listen to what I had to say.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Just table the document. Order! Order!
Darwin Harbour - Protection
Ms WALKER to CHIEF MINISTER
Can you advise the House on the government’s latest efforts to protect the much-loved environment of Darwin Harbour?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her question ...
Members interjecting.
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Could the question be directed to the correct minister?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! The Chief Minister is able to answer questions across all portfolios.
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you. The protection of the harbour is an absolute priority of the government. The minister for the Environment and I just …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr HENDERSON: Just last Friday, we had the pleasure of meeting with the Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee which is a very broad, diverse committee, with a strong representative body across all areas of the economy and the environment.
One of the major discussion points was about sustainable management of our harbour in all aspects of decision-making. We did commit to a proposal that was put to us by DHAC for an integrated monitoring and research plan which will see the government and major industry around the harbour pool resources to ensure the harbour has the most comprehensive environmental monitoring in place ever. This is about government, industry, and the environment - everyone - coming together with a comprehensive, integrated plan.
In the interim, we have conducted two specific reports on the health of Darwin Harbour, and those reports show the harbour is in very good condition. The new monitoring plan will make this better, so we have acted to protect our harbour. We have put in place, as a government, the first-ever plan for the management of Darwin Harbour …
Mr Mills: After 10 years.
Mr HENDERSON: After 27 years of the CLP government - nothing.
We have legislated to protect 96% of the harbour’s mangroves. This government did that, not that government over there. We have a requirement for an EIS for major developments …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: … we have had the first public report card on the health of Darwin Harbour - in fact, we have had two of those; more compliance officers; a new licensing regime; and established the EPA, something the opposition refused to do in regard to the harbour. The opposition are Johnny-come-latelies with these issues around environmental protection, because they had the opportunity in 27 years to demonstrate their commitment to the environment. What did they do? Nothing - no EPA, no plan of management for Darwin Harbour, no integrated monitoring plan, no legislation to protect mangroves, and no requirements for a comprehensive EIS for developments around the harbour.
I thank the Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee for all their work. They do a great job on behalf of everyone who lives in this wonderful capital city of ours, and we will continue to work with them into the future.
CDEP Transition Scheme -
Provision of NT Government Funding
Provision of NT Government Funding
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE to MINISTER for LOCAL GOVERNMENT
When the CDEP transition scheme expires at the end of this month, 500, and possibly up to 800, Indigenous workers in regional Australia are at risk of being tossed out of work. When this scheme was first announced in 2008, the Commonwealth made it clear it was an interim measure put in place while real jobs were found in Aboriginal communities. Your government has created shires that have no sustainable funding base, saddled them with an expensive and useless rate-based accounting system, and is now mute about the stripping of up to 800 real jobs from their workforce. Will you be providing …
Ms Lawrie: Do not mislead the Chamber.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: … the $8.5m needed annually to protect the 500 real jobs the federal government can no longer fund?
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask that the Treasurer withdraw the assertion of misleading the Chamber.
Madam SPEAKER: Just withdraw please, Deputy Chief Minister.
Ms LAWRIE: I withdraw.
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I welcome the question from the member for Katherine. It is an important issue we are facing across the northern Territory. It is our government that has led massive reform across local government in the Northern Territory. We did so because we firmly believe we are here as a government for all people of the Northern Territory. We are a government that is supportive and wanting to see local people in our regions - Aboriginal people in particular - having real jobs. We are a government that has been negotiating with the Commonwealth, wanting the Commonwealth to maintain its commitment to those 500 jobs across the Northern Territory.
I thank the member for Katherine regarding his media release last week because, in it, he actually hit it right on the head. We have the shires, the Northern Territory government, and the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory working actively together to ensure there are real jobs out there and those jobs maintain and consistently stay for the people of the Northern Territory.
Mr Elferink: But, what are you doing?
Ms McCARTHY: What we are doing, unlike members opposite, who are happy to see Aboriginal people across the Northern Territory without those full-time jobs, without those super conditions, without that holiday pay - they were happy to see that happen.
The question needs to come back to the fact that we, as the Northern Territory government, are committed to the Aboriginal people across the Northern Territory and to the employees of the shires. We will continue our commitment to those people across the shires. We have certainly said to the federal government, it is not good enough that they pull out at this stage ...
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The question was simply about whether the minister was going to be finding money from the Northern Territory government to fund these jobs.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Minister, just answer the question as closely as possible to what was asked.
Ms McCARTHY: Madam Speaker, the Northern Territory government is committed to maintaining the jobs across the Northern Territory, with full-time conditions, with superannuation, with holiday pay - unlike the opposition.
Darwin Port - Update
Mr GUNNER to MINISTER for NATURAL RESOURCES, ENVIRONMENT and HERITAGE
Can you update the House on progress in the investigation into a number of recent incidents at the Darwin Port?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Fannie Bay for his question. The harbour, as the Chief Minister and I have said previously, is an absolute priority for this government.
These incidents are serious, and have been thoroughly investigated. If anyone has broken the law, they will be prosecuted. From day one, my department has been on-site to thoroughly investigate these incidents. As with any potential breach of pollution laws, detailed steps need to be taken and an investigation conducted thoroughly, methodically, and professionally in order to determine whether there is a legal case to be answered.
Testing needs to occur, samples need to be analysed and scientifically assessed. Witnesses need to be interviewed and statements need to be taken. Documents need thorough examination and review and, where necessary, expert witnesses need to be identified. This is exactly what staff from my department have been doing.
For example air, water and sediment sampling occurred at the first copper loading immediately after the incident came to light. Two pollution abatement notices have been issued to the Darwin Port Corporation, and another to OZ Minerals. It is not appropriate for me to pre-empt the outcome of those investigations; however, I can reassure the House they have been pursued with vigour.
The experience amongst environment departments across Australia is that these investigations need to be done carefully and, often, take up to six months for the investigations to take place, and maybe even longer to proceed to prosecution if warranted. Short-cutting this process will only lead to one outcome: a failed investigation.
Over and above this investigation, government is taking decisive action to ensure environmental standards are upheld across the board, improving our pollution laws, doubling penalties, introducing a new licensing regime, and more than six compliance officers.
The CLP position – and one thing I will not be doing is what the member for Brennan is doing: making half-cocked statements which potentially prejudice an investigation before it is complete.
I do not mind him having a go at me; however, I draw the line when it comes to attacking our public servants. We know what their secret plan is for our public servants: they are going to slash and burn the public service if they ever get into government. We have here the member for Brennan …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 113: succinct, concise, direct answers.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, can you keep to the point as much as possible please?
Mr HAMPTON: Yes, Madam Speaker, I certainly will. We know what the secret plan of the CLP is if they ever get into government; that is, to slash jobs in our public service. How can our public service undertake these types of investigations when you have the CLP threatening them with their jobs? That is the point I need to put across.
Madam Speaker, we are taking these incidents seriously, and strong action is under way.
Larrakeyah Barracks - Defence Housing
Mr WOOD to MINISTER for LANDS and PLANNING
In the last sittings, when I asked you about the future of the 61 houses at Larrakeyah Barracks, you said it was a good question, mentioned a few problems and, then, said you would ask Defence. I have since had a briefing from Defence Housing. I would like to know whether your government will make every effort to ensure these houses are not demolished but removed and reused?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for his question. Defence Australia is demolishing 61 houses. The houses are managed and owned by the Defence Housing Authority. They are not our assets, and are not on land we control. However, let me make it clear that the 61 houses are considerably aged - we are talking in excess of 30 years. That relates to 30-year-old bathrooms, 30-year-old kitchens, and 30-year-old building materials.
It did come to my attention that the member for Nelson has been briefed by the Defence Department. I welcome that, and I am also being briefed, member for Nelson. My briefing will take place this week. We will talk about those houses and the situation, and I am looking forward to the briefing from the Australian Defence Force with the Defence Housing Authority.
CDEP Reform – Government Solution
Mr GILES to MINISTER for LOCAL GOVERNMENT
The Labor government claims it is committed to closing the gap on Indigenous disadvantage whilst planning a wave of job cuts for Indigenous Territorians as a result of the CDEP reform. Can you clarify exactly how many Indigenous people will lose their jobs when the scheme expires; what interim jobs the Territory government has put in place in the past two years in preparation for this scheme being scrapped; and why Territory Labor treats Aboriginal people with contempt - it just wants their votes with no solutions?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I am more than happy to answer this very uninformed question by the member for Braitling. First, it is our government which has led the way with wanting to ensure Aboriginal people, like any other employee across the Northern Territory in the regions, have access to super, holiday pay, and sick leave. We have talked about real jobs because that is what we are doing out in our communities; that is what the shires have been doing. Of those 500 jobs …
Mr Bohlin: How many are there?
Ms McCARTHY: Well, you have just heard: 500 jobs we are talking about - 500 jobs. These are real jobs where the shires, to their credit – and I thank each of the shires for the effort they have gone to, to ensure they are employing local people on local conditions in these communities, in these regions. It is our government which has ensured, from the word go, we want Indigenous Territorians, like any Territorian, to have access, choice, and the ability to work and care for their families with conditions like any other person in the Territory ...
Mr Mills: Who does not want that?.
Ms McCARTHY: They are not interested in this. If they were interested, they would let me answer this question ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms McCARTHY: Clearly, not interested whatsoever.
As of April, shire councils have transitioned and sustained approximately 491 former CDEP participants into paid employment. A total of 366 Indigenous people were employed full-time, and 125 were employed part-time. A maximum of $10m is available in 2009-10 under the funding agreement between Local Government and FaHCSIA. Let us be very clear: our government is firmly committed to ensuring there are real jobs in the region. We are absolutely committed to ensuring there is a working future for those employees out there, their families and future generations - unlike the opposition, which does not even have a policy of wanting to ensure equity in jobs, not only for Aboriginal men, but also for women.
Darwin Port Corporation –
Abatement Notice
Abatement Notice
Ms SCRYMGOUR to MINISTER for TRANSPORT
Last month, the Darwin Port Corporation was served with a notice regarding contaminated stormwater run-off into the harbour. Can you please update the House on what measures the port is taking to comply with the abatement notice to protect the harbour?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Arafura for her question. As the Darwin Port Corporation can put on the public record as well, pollution of our harbour is unacceptable. We are continuing to make improvements which will have our environment protected.
In response to the abatement notice, the Darwin Port Corporation has provided full access to the Department of NRETAS, and inquiries are being conducted accordingly. The corporation continues to improve its processes and cleaning regimes which will implement significant improvements, which go with significant infrastructure improvements to minimise dust and potential spillages.
The corporation is also testing the stormwater system to ensure contaminants are not able to make their way into the stormwater drainage system. However, unfortunately, my research and my history asks: ‘Who built the port?’, and I am afraid I have to say it was built under the Country Liberal Party government, so that was a good starting point for me. Further to that, unfortunately, the recommendation to not allow stormwater access into the harbour was ignored. So, we now have the situation where stormwater drainage is designed to directly discharge into the harbour. That was against recommendations.
We are talking about a situation that is difficult, costly, and entails the re-engineering of the East Arm Wharf. I am confident the Darwin Port Corporation is able to undertake the necessary upgrades and to meet the requirements of NRETAS.
Unlike our predecessors, we have a big lesson to learn and we are moving forward. We are taking advice, and the environment will be protected under our watch. We will ensure our harbour is protected.
Mining Super Profits Tax
Mr MILLS to CHIEF MINISTER
The Rudd government’s plan to double mining royalties in Australia has been heavily criticised by the Premier of Queensland, Anna Bligh; the Premier of Western Australia, Colin Barnett; and the Treasurer of South Australia, Kevin Foley. Even Victorian Premier, John Brumby, whose state last enjoyed a mining boom during the 1850s, said the super profits tax should be changed. By way of contrast, you have publicly supported this jobs-destroying super tax, despite the critical importance of mining to the Territory’s economy. Do you still support the Rudd government’s attack on jobs and investment in the mining industry in the Northern Territory?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, it is wonderful to at last get a question from the Leader of the Opposition. It has been some days in Question Time since we have had a question from the Leader of the Opposition..
Fundamentally, it is time for cool heads to prevail in this argument. Let us actually look at the history of what has happened in the Northern Territory. It is a history that used to have bipartisan support before the opposition became politically opportunistic to grab on to whatever the polls are saying at any particular point in time.
We are the only jurisdiction in Australia that has a profits-based tax. Queensland does not; Western Australia does not; South Australia does not; Victoria does not; New South Wales does not, and Tasmania does not have a profits-based tax - we do. With the growth in the mining industry since 1982 in the Northern Territory, when the Country Liberal Party introduced a profits-based tax in the Northern Territory, we have seen ongoing investment, ongoing jobs, ongoing contribution from this tax to the Northern Territory.
Anyone who runs an argument that a profits-based tax is, somehow, a disincentive to invest in the mining industry is not looking at what has happened in the Northern Territory, where we have seen an absolute incentive for companies to invest.
What I encourage everybody to do, is to sit down, work this out, and provide certainty back to industry. Of all the discussions that I have had with industry, local industry, national industry, international industry, the issue at the moment is uncertainty. What all companies are crying out for is certainty. We get one opportunity, as Australians - one opportunity only - to actually gain a value from the resources in this country. You can only dig this stuff up once. We have a one-off opportunity to use the revenue stream from the resources we own - the mining companies do not own them - as Australians, to get those royalties to pay for education, health, and infrastructure across the Northern Territory and across Australia.
There is no doubt that, with the mining boom, and the percentage of profits gong to royalties dropping from 34% in 2004-05 to less than 14% in 2008-09, the percentage of royalties actually plummeted. There is an argument that is accepted by everyone that mining companies can and should pay more.
We have had a profits-based system in the Northern Territory that has been applauded by the mining industry. In the mining industry submission to the Henry tax review, they called for a profits-based tax ...
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, your time has expired.
Darwin Harbour - Comparison of Labor
and CLP Plans
and CLP Plans
Ms WALKER to CHIEF MINISTER
The government has protected mangroves, implemented a Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee, and now implemented a coordinated and integrated harbour monitoring strategy. How does this compare to the CLP’s plans for the harbour when they were in government?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, we have a strong record in protecting this harbour - a clean and healthy harbour - and also encouraging a working harbour to contribute to our economy.
We have legislated to protect 96% of mangroves in the harbour, unlike the CLP. Our vision for the harbour is set squarely towards the 21st century requirements of sustainability. At the moment, we are looking at a sustainability regime for the harbour, and our environment going forward, through the EPA and reports to the minister.
It is important to understand that the CLP are very much Johnny-come-latelies to this particular issue; they jump onto a bandwagon because there is a political opportunity associated with it. However, let us look at what their commitment was to the harbour.
First of all, I have been for a bit of a trip down memory lane. This is the mob that would not have an EPA, but what they did want to do was dam the entire Elizabeth River system …
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! It is incorrect …
Members interjecting.
Mr MILLS: No, it is all right, Madam Speaker, I withdraw. It is not worth it.
Mr HENDERSON: They did not want to hear what that would do to the mangroves across Darwin Harbour.
If you go across to the Cox Peninsula, where we have worked hard, as a government, to reach a resolution with the Larrakia, so insensitive were they to the Larrakia, they actually presented plans to dam every single river around the Cox Peninsula - every inlet, every tributary - to create canal estates on land they did not even own - more mangroves gone.
When we come closer to home, there was the Darwin south project, where we were going to see the damming of Sadgroves Creek, Leichhardt Creek, Bleesers Creek - all the creeks in the harbour, all dammed - mangroves all gone, and canal estates. They hated mangroves. Then, the doozey of all ideas was Goyder Island. Not only were we going to dam all the rivers and creeks and rip up all the mangroves, we were going to create an artificial island in the middle of the harbour. This is what the CLP were going to do, these were their plans - no EPA, no independent environmental assessments, and no legislation to protect the mangroves. Then, they traipse in here pretending to be environmental warriors. They will never be environmental warriors, because they are environmental wreckers. It is what they always were, it is what they will go back to.
Mexican Poppy – Prevention of Spread
Ms ANDERSON to MINISTER for NATURAL RESOURCES, ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE
Mexican poppy, a Class B and Class C weed, is spreading rapidly throughout the Finke and Central Australian river catchment due to this year’s rain, and the lack of investment in weed management. What is the government doing in the next few weeks to prevent these plants from setting seed? What is the government doing to meet a statutory obligation to control the growth and spread of this weed?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Macdonnell for her question. Weeds is a big issue across the Northern Territory. It is work my agency always has on the go on, certainly in the regions. Having been through a large part of the regions and meeting staff, it is a significant issue.
Regarding native vegetation and the weeds, as I said, it is work in progress. I am certainly happy to talk to you further about that issue in your electorate, as I know you are out and about there as well. I am happy to get back to you or offer you a briefing.
Mining Super Profits Tax
Mr MILLS to CHIEF MINISTER
The head of Infrastructure Australia, Labor’s favourite businessman, Sir Rod Eddington, has attacked Labor’s super tax as poor policy. David Murray AO, the Chair of the federal government’s Future Fund, has also attacked this jobs-destroying super tax. Why should Territorians believe you have a better grasp of the economic impact of the super mining tax than the head of Infrastructure Australia and the former head of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, there are many people contributing to this debate and, as I have said, cool heads are needed. We need to get a resolution to this debate to provide certainty for the industry.
Dr John Hewson, who is a former leader of the federal Liberal Party, was on Four Corners last night backing what the Prime Minister is doing. He said - and I would have thought John Hewson was a mate of the Leader of the Opposition’s; I have not heard him rubbish him. John Hewson said last night:
- The statement by the head of Rio Tinto about sovereign risk in Australia was an indefensible and outrageous claim to make.
There are claims thrown everywhere around Australia regarding this debate. We can look at history in the Northern Territory, where we have had a profits-based regime which allows the full depreciation of capital uplift on the bond rate - 4% on top of that - and we have seen significant investment in the mining industry.
The fact we have a profits-based tax means smaller mines in regional parts of Australia which otherwise would not get up because they are not allowed to depreciate their capital up-front under an ad valorem scheme, would not get up at all in the Northern Territory. The history in the Territory, as opposed to the bandwagon the Opposition Leader has jumped on, finally - five questions, and he has finally jumped on the bandwagon. His head has never been violated by an original thought ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition! Member Port Darwin! Member for Drysdale!
Mr HENDERSON: What we see is history in the Northern Territory where a profits-based tax has not …
Mr Mills: It is the rate, mate!
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition!
Mr HENDERSON: … led to the detriment of mining.
We have a motion foreshadowed for tomorrow. Quite likely, 26% of GDP comes from mining in the Northern Territory. What the Leader of the Opposition does not say is, of that 26%, very nearly half comes from offshore resources industry, and they already pay a 40% tax. Half of our economic contribution from the resources industry is already paying 40% tax in the Northern Territory - and it is flourishing; we are seeing investment.
The Leader of the Opposition jumps onto a bandwagon; some six weeks after this debate has actually started, he has finally raised it as an issue in this House. I ask him to look at the history of what has happened in the Northern Territory, the bipartisan support we used to have. I ask: is the opposition arguing for an ad valorem tax rate? Go back and tell the mining industry that is now your new policy.
Mt Todd Mine - Legacy
Mr GUNNER to MINISTER for PRIMARY INDUSTRY, FISHERIES and RESOURCES
Can the minister please advise the House of the government’s action responding to the legacy of the Mt Todd Mine left by the previous government?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I find it extraordinary the CLP today is finally talking about the environment and the mining industry. I will tell you how much they love the mining industry. This is the party that, before 2001, in order to undermine the land rights legislation, sat on 700 exploration applications which we found in the minister’s office. They were not going to approve them to undermine the land rights legislation …
Mr Elferink: You have the language wrong. You are talking about …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin!
Mr Elferink: Madam Speaker, he should get it right. He really should.
Mr VATSKALIS: … the native title, Madam Speaker. That is how much they love the mining industry.
They come to this House today and talk about the environment. Who can forget Mt Todd? They even overruled their own requirements about an environmental bond. When Mt Todd was to be approved, the minister’s office told them the maximum they could put as an environmental bond was $900 000. How much has the Mt Todd disaster cost to date? In excess of $6m - not to repair it; to maintain it in a condition that will not pollute the Edith River and the Daly River. Mt Todd was so polluted that, every month, dirty water was putting 17 tonnes of copper into Edith River and, on top of that, 700 000 litres of hydrogen cyanide was sitting on top of the Edith River waiting for an accident to happen.
What did I find? This is what I found - this is the retention pond that was supposed to keep the water in Mt Todd. Did it work? No, it did not. Why? It was in such bad condition it could not hold the water, and that water would run down Edith River every time there was a rainfall incident.
These are the environmental conditions under which the CLP government allowed the mine to deteriorate. The member for Katherine should be very worried about it because it is in his electorate. Some of his own members commented on what a terrible decision it was by Mike Reed and everybody involved to undermine even their own processes.
In excess of $6m spent, and it is not fixed yet. We have a significant volume of water, the pH of which is nearly two, which is highly toxic, sitting at the pit of the mine. We took urgent action with a private company in order to stop leaching of the water at the Edith River and also to neutralise 700 000 litres of high potency cyanide.
Madam Speaker, a leopard never changes its spots, nor does the CLP.
Mining Royalties - Rate
Ms PURICK to TREASURER
In the last Territory budget, you increased mining royalties under the Mineral Royalty Act by 10%. If you and your Chief Minister believe the Rudd government’s decision to increase mining royalties by 100% is a good policy, why did you not double royalties in the Northern Territory budget?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, the question from the member for Goyder is very welcome. The CLP have lately got on the bandwagon around the resources super profits tax. They have not taken the time to understand the detail of it. One of the details is that the Northern Territory …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Ms LAWRIE: One of the details is the Northern Territory’s entire royalties regime will be rebated back to the mining companies by the Commonwealth when the Commonwealth has its own regime in place. They certainly do not understand that offshore they have been paying at a rate of 40%. We are seeing offshore production rising.
The Henry tax review had a body of experts who did their own modelling in and around the percentage. I recognise one of the modelling they would have undertaken at that time was to actually to have a look over a 10-year period. If you want to look at modelling around rates, we certainly modelled around a seven-year period when we looked at our own two percentage point increase in our royalty scheme. We also looked at how we compare ours to the ad valorem jurisdictions of Western Australia and Queensland; they are our competitors.
If they understand this debate at all, you have to understand, the whole reason why the Henry tax review went down the pathway of a federal tax regime is because all of the states and territories, being competitors, were basically undercutting Australians in the tax take on the resources in the ground. Because states and territories are competitors, we were undercutting each other in that tax rate. So, of course, I kept …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The question is very simple and only requires a short answer. I draw your attention to Standing Order 113.
Madam SPEAKER: Resume your seat. Just keep to the point, minister.
Ms LAWRIE: Of course, Madam Speaker, I had to be very aware of where we sat within the competitor regime of states and territories into where we pegged ours. We did a seven-year modelling and comparison, taking a profit-based scheme, comparing that to an ad valorem scheme. We worked out 20% would be equivalent to a 5.3% ad valorem. That is in a competitive regime, the whole point of the Henry tax …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! None of this pertains to the question. Standing Order 113.
Ms LAWRIE: It totally pertains, and if you understood it, you would understand why.
Madam SPEAKER: I believe the minister is speaking to the question. Minister, please continue.
Ms LAWRIE: We modelled, to be competitive in a profit-based versus an ad valorem-based on theirs ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! She should answer the question. It is a straightforward question; why does she not answer it?
Ms LAWRIE: I would if you would stop interrupting.
Mr Elferink: Well, answer the question.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, the minister is answering the question.
Ms LAWRIE: We compared and contrasted ours to our competitors, which are the states and territories. Queensland and Western Australia, predominantly, are our competitors. The whole point of a federal tax is to take the competition amongst the states and territories …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! She is not being succinct, concise, or direct. Could she answer the question?
Dr BURNS: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker. This morning you gave a little speech about …
Madam SPEAKER: The question is about to finish.
Dr BURNS: … frivolous points of order and disruptive points of order …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! The time for the question has expired. Resume your seats.
Before I call anyone, member for Port Darwin, you called a number of points of order there. The minister was actually speaking to the question. I frequently call ministers up but, on that occasion, the minister was speaking to the question.
Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education - Program Management
by Charles Darwin University
by Charles Darwin University
Mr WOOD to MINISTER for EDUCATION and TRAINING
Can you confirm whether Charles Darwin University will take over higher education programs from the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education in 2011 or 2012?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for his question. As members would be aware, and I believe the public would be aware, Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education experienced very serious difficulties over the last 18 months, particularly in relation to their management. The Northern Territory and Australian governments have been working together to support the Batchelor Institute. I am sure we all agree, it is a very important educational institution for the Territory; it is unique in Australia.
I can advise the House that Batchelor Institute will continue as an autonomous body. It will continue to deliver tertiary education as well as VET courses. What is happening with the announcement that has been made by the federal minister is there will be a cooperative and collaborative relationship between Batchelor and CDU, particularly around financial management, management generally, and also quality assurance in their courses. Both levels of government have been working very closely with the Batchelor Institute. Earlier this year, I met with the new director, Adrian Mitchell, and discussed some of these matters with him. I believe he will be a breath of fresh air at Batchelor Institute. I commend the work at Batchelor.
I can give you the assurance, member for Nelson, that Batchelor Institute will continue as an autonomous entity, but there will be a collaborative relationship with CDU, which I believe makes a lot of sense.
Mining Super Profits Tax –
Risk to Territory Economy
Risk to Territory Economy
Ms PURICK to TREASURER
Xstrata has announced it is reviewing all of its mining operations in Australia as a result of the Rudd government’s super mining tax. In the Northern Territory, McArthur River Mine’s contribution to the Territory’s gross state product is about 4%, and it spends about $350m per year in the Territory. Overall, mining racks up a massive 26.5% of the Territory’s economy, contributes about $6.7bn to the Territory economy; and, in 2008-09, injected about $160m directly into the Territory’s coffers. Why do you support a tax that puts this massive contribution to the Territory’s economy at risk?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, fundamentally, the premise of the question is erring, because it does not put it at risk. What we are getting at the moment is, obviously, a debate around a tax being proposed by the federal government. That debate was always going to happen, because the major mining companies are always going to say, ‘Well, we do not particularly want a tax but, if there is going to be a tax, let us fight about what that tax is, what the rate is, what the transitional arrangements are’. That is actually what is going on.
It is just what everyone would have predicted would have occurred post the Henry tax review. That is actually what is going on. It is not just me saying that. I will quote from Four Corners again, David Buckingham, who is the …
Mr Conlan: Oh, the cheer squad.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: Cheer squad? Interesting. David Buckingham, the former Minerals Council CEO, national, said:
- They will need to pay more tax. They don’t like it, and they are reacting accordingly.
Okay, so you might want to describe him as a cheer squad, but he is actually someone who has headed up the resources industry at a national level. The given is no one wants a new tax. When a government tries to introduce a new tax, there is going to be an argument about the tax, about how the tax applies, who it applies to, what the rate is.
The Northern Territory government’s response has been very clear. If there is going to be a new tax, profits-based is the right tax, because it does not penalise the start-up of mines – the capital expenditure start-up, the high cost end of mining that is written off - and they do not pay royalties during that time. If you are going to have a new tax, have it profits-based. We have been very clear about that.
We have also been saying offshore already pays at the rate of 40%, and look what is happening; they are flourishing. It is based around modelling around commodities prices, and whether or not you believe we are going into a period of commodities boom. Also, the modelling has been retrospective and, if the member opposite had not been interrupting all the time during the last answer, I will explain this. Again, it is modelling - around the federal tax, not a Territory tax. But you will see, the black line shows what the mineral tax royalties are as a percentage of profit. So, 10 years ago …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Ms LAWRIE: Ten years ago, they were equivalent to 40% percentage of profit. What is happening is profits are increasing, commodities boom. The tigers of China and India are awake, so commodities boom, okay?
Members interjecting.
Mr Tollner: Table it.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: I will table it in due course, but I have to explain it to you. So you see, profits are increasing, and royalties as a share of profits have plummeted. Where does it equate to? It equates to 40%. Offshore is paying 40%; the modelling around a 10-year period shows you that it adjusts back to 40%. That is not work the Territory government did, that is work experts in the Henry tax review panel did ...
Mr Elferink: You wanted an income tax; that was your answer. You wanted to levy an income tax on Territorians.
Ms LAWRIE: No, we did not. Of course, there will be industry debate and argument around the tax ...
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Treasurer, your time has expired.
Territory Harbours – Action to Protect
Ms SCRYMGOUR to CHIEF MINISTER
In addition to the new integrated Darwin Harbour monitoring system, can you advise the House on what other action the government has taken to protect not only this harbour, but all harbours across the Territory and the environment as a whole?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Arafura for her question. The strongest step we took as a government was to create an independent EPA - the Territory’s first ever EPA, an independent environmental watchdog the CLP refused to create. We have now strengthened the EPA with new powers.
I acknowledge that was bipartisan through this House not long ago; giving the EPA new powers: to comment on environmental impact statements; strategically review how well EIS recommendations are taken up in approvals; receive and investigate public complaints over agency responses to environmental incidents; and monitor and report on the cumulative impacts of developments on the environment. In the budget this year, we increased the budget of the EPA by around 30% to strengthen their hand. This is what this government has done. It is an absolute commitment to protecting the environment.
Look at the hypocrisy of the opposition about the EPA, and against the establishment of the EPA. They come in here, cloak themselves in bright green clothing; the great environmental warriors of the CLP. Let us look at what their position was on an EPA when they had the responsibilities of office. The current Deputy Leader of the Opposition, very senior responsibility, and this was her position on an EPA as we had proposed to introduce it at the time. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said:
- … the current system of environmental assessment and management by government for the resource industry is objective, fair and open to scrutiny and is relevant for contemporary operations.
That was the position of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who is now cloaked in the bright green for the environment ...
Ms PURICK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Chief Minister is being misleading and mischievous. While it was not me, I have representative …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Goyder, if you wish to make a personal explanation, you may do so afterwards.
Ms Purick: I will, Madam Speaker.
Mr HENDERSON: She went on to say:
- … major changes to the current arrangements cannot be justified …
She certainly did not want it to be independent:
- I think the word ‘independent’ is grossly misused, …
Said the environmental warrior opposite:
- … it is almost devoid of meaning these days.
In the lead-up to the 2005 election, the CLP line was that an EPA was not required. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said:
- We have some of the better legislations in Australia whether it be the Environmental Assessment Act or whether it be the Mining Management Act. … people seem to get hung up on this word ‘independence’ ...
So, do not look at what they say, see what they did when they were in government.
Mr Conlan: What about 2008? We led the charge. We were going to put $8m into an independent EPA …
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Greatorex!
Mr HENDERSON: This bright green cloak is nothing but a faade …
Mr Conlan interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, you are on a warning!
Mr HENDERSON: … if they were ever to occupy the government benches again, the EPA would be gone – gone and dusted …
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, your time has expired.
Mining Super Profits Tax
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE to MINISTER for NATURAL RESOURCES, ENVIRONMENT and HERITAGE
I am pleased to hear that your colleagues have relied so heavily on quotes from the Four Corners program last night. Last night on the ABC Four Corners program, Treasurer Wayne Swan said that some mining companies could pay up to 58% of their earnings in tax under the resources super profits tax. Do you think it is fair that mining companies in the Territory could be forced to pay nearly 60% of their earnings in tax?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, the thing the member for Katherine should tell is they will receive 20% back from the tax because they pay royalties in the Territory. The other thing we have to tell …
Mr Mills: No, hang on, that does not make sense.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr VATSKALIS: … is with the super profits tax, explorers will receive a 30% rebate of their expenditure when they explore for minerals and, because of this proposed super tax, business tax will go down by 2%.
In addition to that, there will be an Infrastructure Fund, so it is not all doom and gloom. I believe all Australians own the mineral wealth of Australia and are entitled to get a fair return for this mineral wealth, not all of it going to overseas companies.
The other thing is, companies are so terrified of the super tax that, only this week, Minemakers announced they were going ahead with the mine in Wonarah ...
Members interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: Also, Crocodile Gold, in your own electorate.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Katherine!
Mr VATSKALIS: Crocodile Gold, in his electorate, said the super tax will have little impact on their operations, and INPEX said the tax would not apply to them.
What we said before, and will say again - I have said it at many mining forums. I went to the Mineral Council breakfast, and I met with Martin Ferguson. What the companies wants is certainty. In China, out of 230 people participating in our seminar, we were asked one question. That question was about when, finally, are we to know about this tax, because they need to invest. That was witnessed by the journalists from NT News who were with us at the time. Companies want certainty. They will not invest unless they know what is happening.
One thing you have to remember is, companies will pay the tax if they make profit. We have the example in the Territory. I can name two companies, one recently, which did not pay any royalties for 17 years, for the simple reason they had not wiped out the capital expense of the mine. Another one, during the CLP era, paid royalties after 20 years, after they wiped out the capital expenses. They will only pay the proposed tax, because it will only come into effect in two years, if they make a profit.
Special Schools Infrastructure
Ms WALKER to MINISTER for EDUCATION and TRAINING
Some of our most disadvantaged students are special needs children who attend special schools. Can you please inform the House of the government’s plan for investment in special schools infrastructure across the Northern Territory?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nhulunbuy for her question. It has been my privilege, as Education minister, to visit a number of special schools and meet the staff, students and some parents. I have been very impressed by the dedication of the staff, by the atmosphere I have encountered in the special schools, and the joy of learning for those children. I really do commend staff and parents for working together.
Government has made a significant investment of $30m in the recent budget over five years for our special schools; and a new school at Palmerston, $10m for 100 students. I believe that will be very welcomed by the parents at Palmerston.
Apart from Palmerston, there is $5.65m for Nemarluk; $5.6m for Acacia School; $2.85m for Henbury; Kintore Street in Katherine, $2.55m; $2m to expand the Palmerston High annexe; $2m to expand Woodroofe Primary;, and $3m for a new annexe in Palmerston and the rural area.
We could always do more, I acknowledge that. However, this is a significant investment. I want to work closely with those in special schools, particularly the parents, to find other ways forward to improve the education for our special needs students.
Wirrina Housing Complex – Reduction in Public Housing Units
Mr WOOD to MINISTER for PUBLIC and AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Your government recently announced the redevelopment of the Wirrina housing complex at Parap. Originally, the complex had 55 public housing units but, now, under the new development, it will have only 10. Where are the 45 public housing units that were demolished and not replaced going to be built, and when?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for his very important question. First, all those residents at Wirrina have been found accommodation; no one was turned out on the street. With Wirrina, there is a plan for 35 affordable housing units, and 10 will be for seniors. Regarding the affordable housing sector of the market, I believe we have to look at that too, because there is a spectrum in housing needs. Sometimes, people in that space of affordable housing come on the public housing waiting list. As a government, we are trying to attend to as many parts of the spectrum as we can.
As to what government is doing, in the budget we announced nearly $50m for 150 new dwellings for the replenishment of public housing stock. That is an important step forward. That is excluding the 40-odd units for seniors which will be at Bellamack. Also, in our partnership with the Commonwealth - and we do have a very important partnership with the Commonwealth – we have the $60m housing stimulus program, which includes the 40 units at Bellamack, but also for short-term transitional emergency and public housing.
We have a long way to go, I acknowledge that. As minister, I am committed to replenishing public housing stock. We have 15% of all the development in what I call Palmerston East which will be social and public housing. So, we do have a commitment, through Palmerston East and into Weddell. I have a commitment to replenish public housing over time.
Mining Super Profits Tax – Chinese Reaction
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE to MINISTER for PRIMARY INDUSTRY, FISHERIES and RESOURCES
You recently asserted that, after a meeting with Chinese investors, they have no concerns about the Rudd super profits tax. Last week, The Australian newspaper highlighted just how foolish that comment actually was. The Australian reported the Chairman of CITIC Pacific, the largest Chinese mining investor in Australia, is ‘shocked’ by the Rudd government’s planned resources tax, and is seeking a special exemption for his $6bn Pilbara iron project. How did you get it so wrong? How did you fail to discover that a doubling of royalties would stop China’s biggest investor in Australia?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question. It is a very exciting, very interesting question. CITIC Pacific in Australia, the biggest Chinese investor, says that it is terrible for Western Australia, and we have Palmer on the other side, the miner from Queensland, who says this is a terrible decision because it is going to benefit Chinese investments in Australia.
Where is the truth, somewhere in the middle? The reality is people pay tax; they know they have to pay tax. What they need to know is what level of tax they pay, when they will pay, how will they pay, and when it will apply.
When I was in China the question we were repeatedly asked - and we had the Germans with us to witness it - was the about uncertainty. They do not like uncertainty ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order! Member for Katherine!
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Speaker, so worried is the opposition about the new super profits tax that Peter Dutton, the federal opposition Health spokesman, went out after the announcement and bought BHP shares. He is really worried about it, isn’t he? He invested in BHP shares, in mining shares.
The reality is we saw exactly the same arguments and scare campaign when the federal government introduced the gold tax, when they went to the native title and land rights, and when they introduced the petroleum tax. They do not like to pay taxes; I do not like to pay taxes, we all do not like paying taxes. However, the reality is we have to have pay tax.
The federal government said, which they are currently negotiating with the industry, is it is fair for all Australians to benefit from the mineral boom. It is fair for all Australians to get something back from their mineral wealth. That is what they are doing. I have urged the federal government to negotiate in good faith with the mining industry. I have asked the mining industry to negotiate in good faith with the federal government.
Let us forget the hyperbole; let us get down to business and talk business. The reality is that the tax will be paid. They recognise they have to pay more tax; they have said it publicly. The question is, where the tax will be, when it will apply, and how it will apply?
I urge very strongly for the tax not to apply to …
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I draw your attention to relevance on this question. I clearly asked about the minister’s dealings with the Chinese, and he deliberately avoided the whole question.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, can you come to the point very quickly?
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Speaker, I will tell you how concerned the Chinese are. In three weeks time, we have the Vice President of China, together with a number of ministers, visiting the Northern Territory. This is how concerned the Chinese are about the super tax.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Written Question Paper.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016