2013-03-27
Water Extraction Licence - Approval
Ms LAWRIE to CHIEF MINISTER
In your watermate scandal you have handed Tina MacFarlane, the CLP candidate for Lingiari, water rights worth, potentially, millions of dollars. Why did you ignore the scientists? Why did you ignore the independent panel? Why did you ignore the Supreme Court? Why did you ignore the Indigenous and other landowners of the region? Has anyone else been handed a water extraction licence since you became Chief Minister, other than your CLP mate?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for her grubby question. I can advise some technical details. Mr and Mrs MacFarlane first applied for a groundwater extraction licence in 2005 to take 5000 ML per year from Mataranka Tindall Limestone Aquifer.
An amendment was made to this application which was received late in 2008, under the previous government, for 5780 ML. A grant was issued mid-2010 for 500 ML to allow Mr and Mrs MacFarlane to commence development while more details on resource sustainability were gathered as part of the water allocation planning process under way in the Mataranka area.
The only bore known to be available, RN34505, for irrigation development by Mr and Mrs MacFarlane could supply water at the rate required under the granted licence.
Mr and Mrs MacFarlane lodged an appeal under the Water Act against the decision to grant the licence for an amount less than applied for. The appeal was referred to the Water Resource Review Panel and the minister of the day accepted the panel’s recommendation that the licensing decision be upheld.
Subsequently, Mr and Mrs MacFarlane lodged an action against the licensing decision with the Supreme Court. Prior to the matter going to court, the Department of Land Resource Management made two offers of increased allocation up to 1500 ML to settle out of court, but Mr and Mrs MacFarlane rejected both offers.
The court ruled against Mr and Mrs MacFarlane and they appealed this decision. The initial appeal hearing has been held and, subject to Mr and Mrs MacFarlane wishing to continue, may not be settled for some months.
On 26 October 2012, Mr and Mrs MacFarlane made a new application for 5800 ML. On 7 November 2012, a notice of intention to make a water extraction licence decision was published as required under the Water Act. Landowners in the Mataranka area were also given a copy of the licence as required under the act.
Eight written submissions were received in response to the notice. The comments consistently raised concerns with the possible granting of a water extraction licence of the quantum sought by Mr and Mrs MacFarlane.
On 15 March 2013, the Controller of Water Resources granted a 10-year term licence to Mr and Mrs MacFarlane, allowing them to take up to 5800 ML per year from two existing bores and additional bores yet to be filled. In granting the licence, the controller took into account the submissions received in response to his notice of intention to make a water extraction licence decision and all relevant factors as required under section 90 of the Water Act. To assist the controller in determining the licence application, the Department of Land Resource Management assessed the risk of impact to springs in the adjacent Elsey National Park and the Roper River by the extraction of 5800 ML per year on Mr and Mrs MacFarlane’s property.
Madam Speaker, there have been no political advances in this; it has not gone to Cabinet or to the ministerial level. I congratulate the MacFarlanes for trying to develop the region and create jobs. I encourage others to apply for water to develop the region and create more jobs ...
Madam SPEAKER: Your time has expired, Chief Minister.
Container Deposit Legislation –
Federal Court Decision
Federal Court Decision
Ms LEE to CHIEF MINISTER
Can you inform the House why the Territory container deposit scheme legislation Labor introduced was declared invalid by the Federal Court, and advise what you will do to overcome this?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Arnhem for her question. I congratulate her on taking up my offer to assist the Minister for Local Government in the shire reform process. Both the minister and the member for Arnhem are doing a fantastic job in this regard.
This is another sad and sorry tale of Labor incompetence when it comes to the container deposit legislation. The previous government knew from the start the legislation was always going to be in trouble. My colleague, the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment, raised many concerns about the legislation right from the word go. We found ourselves, earlier this month, in the Federal Court of Australia facing a challenge. The Federal Court determined the container deposit legislation, as introduced by the previous government, was illegal under the Commonwealth Mutual Recognition Act. This is a significant blow to businesses in the Northern Territory, to confidence, and to Territorians who have so much faith in the recycling scheme in the Northern Territory.
It is important to note that since the scheme started - albeit under a poorly designed legislative framework by the previous Labor government and, again, something we have to fix - more than 52 million containers have been recycled. A total of 52 481 000 or 3897 tonnes have been deposited. This is a real win for Territorians and for the recycling agenda and support for the environment.
It is something we support. We have tried to clean up Labor’s mess, yet again, around container deposit legislation. If their legislation …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Why has the opposition been blocked from a briefing by the Solicitor-General? Why have you been blocking the briefing request?
Madam SPEAKER: Opposition Leader, there is no point of order. Please sit down.
Mr GILES: We are seeking to pursue the benefits of the container deposit legislation. We have been in communication with all state and territory jurisdictions to seek their support for a way around this issue with the Mutual Recognition Act.
I can indicate that jurisdictions around the nation have provided a positive response to allowing exemption for the Northern Territory from the Commonwealth’s Mutual Recognition Act. We will be taking this to COAG in the coming weeks and will be seeking support to get a permanent exemption so we can continue the container deposit legislation. I look forward to that day and thank other jurisdictions for their support. I look forward to working with the Prime Minister to ensure consumers in the Northern Territory, who seek to recycle so much, can continue with that scheme.
Water Extraction Licence - Approval
Mr McCARTHY to CHIEF MINISTER
Your watermate scandal stinks of corruption. In your first week …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Under Standing Order 112, I urge that be ruled out of order. If it assists, Madam Speaker, Standing Order 112(2) refers to inferences, imputations and epithets. That comment qualified on all three counts.
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I found that to be an unparliamentary comment and I ask the member opposite to withdraw it.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! At least be consistent. Which standing order are you going for? John Elferink is going for one and Dave Tollner is going for another.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Barkly, if you could reword your question please so it is not offensive.
Mr McCARTHY: Your watermate scandal stinks. In your first week as the Chief Minister, you have handed over natural assets of the Northern Territory worth millions. Why are you taking money from seniors while gifting millions to your CLP mate?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I do not take the question in the way it was framed. We are not taking anything from seniors. As government - without going to Cabinet, to ministers, or having any discretion from this side of the Chamber – we have followed a completely bureaucratic process, clear and transparent. I encourage every person on the opposite side of the Chamber to obtain a brief on the process if they would like one, because they were involved when they were in government for the original application in 2008 ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! If you are not going to do it, rule it out.
Madam SPEAKER: Sit down! It is not a point of order. Please be seated.
Mr GILES: Madam Speaker, I have no idea what the Leader of the Opposition is talking about. We are still trying to clean up Labor’s mess.
I am proud we have been able to offer water to someone who wants to develop the regions of the Northern Territory.
I have heard a few media commentators or representatives from Indigenous organisations are saying this is not right. I look at this glass. This glass is not half empty; it is half full. This is an opportunity for Indigenous communities around the Northern Territory to lead the way in seeing the opportunity available to extract water and start developing a horticultural and agricultural region. This is the model we want to support business development and create jobs.
This is in Mataranka, one location in the Northern Territory that needs development and enterprise to flourish. Development of business is a good thing.
The opposition knew about this application years ago and was reluctant to make a decision to support the regions. I say to all Indigenous organisations I have heard concerns about: take this as an opportunity to realise the potential in creating and developing businesses, creating jobs and having a sustainable future for children. This is what it is about.
It is fantastic that people are investing in our regions. I will be encouraging and supporting more of it. As I said at the outset, none of this went to Cabinet or a minister. This is a bureaucratic process. If you want to check the transparency, get a briefing.
Container Deposit Legislation –
Success in Alice Springs
Success in Alice Springs
Mr HIGGINS to MINISTER for CENTRAL AUSTRALIA
Could you please advise how successful the container deposit legislation has been for the community of Alice Springs and surrounds?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Daly for the question. It is a very important issue. We warned the previous government about all the problems they would face. Potential breaches of the Mutual Recognition Act were argued wonderfully by the shadow minister at the time.
Nevertheless, we will try to do what we can to salvage the benefits of the container deposit legislation scheme while the Chief Minister does his best in Canberra and at COAG to work with the other state Premiers through some of the legalities.
The benefits to the Alice Springs community have been widespread. I am advised by the manager of our local depot at Territory Metals that container returns are currently around 45 000 per day and growing. That is approximately 270 000 containers per week no longer blowing around the streets of Alice Springs or filling up the rubbish dump. As a result of the scheme, Territory Metals has employed nine new staff to handle this work. That equates to jobs, jobs, jobs - something this government is very supportive of. We are pro-development and pro-jobs, not like the anti-development Luddites on the other side.
Territory Metals has invested in many tens of thousands of dollars of infrastructure and equipment. The manager is receiving 20 to 30 phone calls a day from locals wanting to ensure the program is still operating ...
Members interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: It is very difficult; we have Karl Marx and Groucho Marx sitting on the other side of the Chamber. We did warn you from the beginning that this was going to be a problem, despite the benefits.
Ladies in town camps are collecting containers for the payment. Seventeen Central Australian schools have recycling trailers to help raise money and teach recycling behaviours to their students. Dog walkers are picking up containers on their morning or afternoon walks. The schools, streets, town camps, and parks are tidier. Alice Springs and surrounds are tidier as a result of the container deposit scheme.
We always said it was a pretty good scheme, it was just your model was legally flawed. Now we have to clean up the Labor mess. The Chief Minister will do whatever he can to make sure we work through the Mutual Recognition Act and can continue with the great benefits of the container deposit scheme.
Water Extraction Licence - Approval
Mr VATSKALIS to CHIEF MINISTER
Your watermate scandal stinks. You have gifted Tina MacFarlane millions of dollars of water rights. Why did you ignore the Indigenous Territorians who opposed the plan? Yesterday, you said you would govern for all Territorians. Why is it only your mate who has been gifted a million dollar present?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I am pretty sure my last answer was sufficient for this question, but I will go over old ground. The decision to grant the water licence was a completely bureaucratic, clear and transparent decision which did not come to ant of us. This was made in 2008 when you were in government. You procrastinated, could not make a decision, were sucking up to your environmental leftie mates, and were not prepared to support business and development ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 51, I cannot hear what the Chief Minister is saying. Did you say we were sucking up to our environmental mates?
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Please be seated.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, if you could please pause. If all members could be quiet while somebody is speaking then we can all hear. I remind members they need to quote the standing order number before they speak to the standing order when they are interjecting.
Mr GILES: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The challenge we all face is getting the balance right between environmental sustainability, business development, and job growth. That is what the authorities had in mind when they made this decision. It took a number of years before this application was approved. We have seen a right balance between environmental management and sustainability, and an opportunity for investment in the regions of the Northern Territory.
I congratulate the MacFarlanes. It does not matter whether they are CLP candidates or anybody else, if they are developing the regions and creating jobs it is a real opportunity. I want to see other applications for water licences to build jobs in the Northern Territory, particularly in the regions. This is what we stand for. This is how we will govern in supporting business and development and creating jobs.
As I said in my previous answer, I encourage any people who want to move to a model of business and development to create jobs. I encourage Indigenous organisations and individuals to come forward with applications, whether they are for a water application licence or otherwise. This is a positive; it is not a negative. This is just a grubby little thing the opposition is trying to do.
The first time I heard about this was when I opened the paper and read it. Congratulations to the MacFarlanes for putting themselves, their livelihoods and their money on the line for this pursuit of economic development. They should be congratulated for investing in the Northern Territory. We need more people like them who have the intestinal fortitude to want to develop the Territory. Jobs are about growth, the future, and our children.
Container Deposit Legislation –
Positive Impact on Business
Positive Impact on Business
Ms FINOCCHIARO to MINISTER for BUSINESS
Can you please advise the House of some of the benefits and positive impacts on business given the government’s decision to underwrite and continue the container deposit scheme?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Drysdale for her question. I know business and jobs are very important to the member for Drysdale, and it is an important question she asks.
We are about providing certainty to those businesses that have set up in the Northern Territory due to Labor’s failed container deposit legislation.
We can see the social and environmental benefits, but we clearly also see the economic benefits. Businesses have set up and people have jobs. I am advised there are almost 100 people working in the CDL industry permanently. That is a great outcome.
For those business people who put their money on the line, put their hard earned savings on the line, put blood, sweat and tears into getting these businesses up and going, it has all been placed in jeopardy because of what we said at the time: that Labor did not get the legislation right.
We know they did not get the legislation right. Labor members were acting for their own political survival. They had no interest in container deposit legislation. The only reason they put this legislation in place was because of the deal they did with the member for Nelson who insisted on it. They did not care about the legislation; it was just a box they had to tick.
All that investment, blood, sweat and tears has been put in jeopardy as a result of this court case that found against the Northern Territory - the previous Labor government’s legislation. As my friend and colleague, the Minister for Central Australia said, it is now left to us to pick up the pieces and try to fix Labor’s mess.
This is another legacy item the member for Karama has left us, along with the many hundreds of others: $600m in unfunded legacy items she has bequeathed to this new government. It is another area where we have to pick up the pieces.
I put on the record how disgusted I am at the previous government and its appalling treatment of Territorians and Territory businesses. We are left having to spend an enormous amount of money picking up the pieces of their failure on something that should have been a good plan, that should have been providing benefits to the environment, to the social community, all of those types of things ...
Ms Lawrie: How much? You do not even know how much.
Mr TOLLNER: Too much! Absolutely too much.
Member for Arnhem’s Fuel Card
Mr McCARTHY to CHIEF MINISTER
Before you knifed Terry Mills while he was in Japan, he promised to investigate allegations that the member for Arnhem was inappropriately using her taxpayer-funded fuel card. Will you release her fuel card details, or will you continue to cover up and refuse to allow her to talk?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, with the changes that occurred a couple of weeks ago there has been a great deal of commentary about how the opposition will take their fight in this area.
My comment to my colleagues has been that they will go personal, because they do not have anything else to stand on. They will try to attack us personally; that is all they will do. The continued attacks on the member for Arnhem, who is a very good local member, well-connected in her electorate and the community, I find disgraceful.
The first day the Leader of the Opposition walked into this Chamber she slurred the good member for Daly in an outrageous way …
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 113: relevance. Is he going to answer the question about releasing the fuel card details?
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, you have the call.
Mr GILES: Thank you very much. She slurred the member for Daly, attacked the member for Arnhem, and now is trying to attack another person who is involved in the CLP ...
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 113: relevance. The question is to our new Chief Minister. We had a commitment from the previous Chief Minister. What are you going to do about it?
Mr GILES: There is a reason there are three minutes on the clock to answer a question; it is because I have three minutes. In the slurs and attacks against the member for Arnhem, what I find really insulting is for 27 years and beyond Labor has used and manipulated organisations and everyone else to support their Labor mates in the bush. That is exactly what has happened. Here we have the Jawoyn organisation …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: What is your standing order?
Ms LAWRIE: What a load of rubbish! Sixteen thousand dollars from the Jawoyn was spent on her campaign ...
Madam SPEAKER: Sit down, there is no point of order! Sit down!
Mr GILES: I have not read the full constitution of the Jawoyn Association but I know in the first item there is a principle that talks about …
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 113: relevance. We are talking about taxpayer-funded, Legislative Assembly fuel cards.
Madam SPEAKER: The Chief Minister has three minutes to answer.
Mr GILES: The first item in the Jawoyn Association principles talks about supporting Jawoyn people to be leaders, to advance themselves, to be all they can be. We have an organisation supporting one of its own to be a real leader, a future leader in the parliament of the Northern Territory. You must congratulate the Jawoyn Association for its support for local people. A fantastic new member has come in, and I congratulate the Jawoyn Association for supporting the member for Arnhem. It is completely hypocritical for Labor, after all …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Thirty-five seconds and Standing Order 113. Answer the question! When will you provide the fuel card details of the member for Arnhem as promised by the previous Chief Minister?
Mr GILES: It is completely hypocritical for you to sit there now, after having used, abused, and manipulated people for your bush members in the past, running campaigns out there. You have no credentials in the bush. Your educational outcomes, jobs, health, domestic violence, alcohol, have all failed …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 113. Answer the question! Fifteen seconds.
Madam SPEAKER: The Chief Minister is answering the question in his time.
Mr GILES: Your hypocritical nature - you should be ashamed of the way you have treated the member for Arnhem. If you knew anything about parliamentary process and governance, you would lodge a freedom of information application.
Container Deposit Legislation –
Social and Community Benefits
Social and Community Benefits
Mr KURRUPUWU to MINISTER for INFRASTRUCTURE
Can you please advise the House of some of the social and community benefits due to the government decision to underwrite continuation of the container deposit scheme?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question and will take this question also as Minister for Young Territorians. The not-for-profit sector has benefited from the revenue and income-raising aspects of this container deposit scheme. The government has put in $2m to keep this scheme going until we find out the result of the application for an exemption under the Mutual Recognition Act.
This is another Labor mess we have to clean up. We had to put in an extra $2m to get us through to a possible answer on the Mutual Recognition Act.
Community groups, committees, social clubs and sporting clubs collect containers to supplement their revenue schemes. In my electorate, the Sanderson Scouts have a fantastic can collection scheme and have done for many years. Also, 60% of returns from this sector - I will give some examples. The NT branch of the Vietnam Veterans Association and the north Australia branch of the RSL are raising up to $7000 per year which they use to help their legatees and youth.
Another source of return where Territorians are clearly benefiting from this scheme is through their community members, seniors, children, and families. Territorians work hard to utilise this scheme to help families raise funds to pay for family holidays, buy sporting equipment, and pay for extracurricular activities such as sports, school camps, etcetera.
We would like nothing more than to help young people, community groups and seniors; however, we have been slugged with a $5.5bn millstone costing us $750 000 per day due to the mismanagement of the previous Labor government.
In the debate we had when this scheme was brought in we clearly articulated our concerns to the then government, now opposition, and they did not listen. They did their deal with the member for Nelson, got this through, and we have a 12-month exemption with, possibly, nothing further than that. They have poured millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money into this to get it going. It is a great scheme.
The real environmental benefits of removing, recycling, and reusing more than 20 million containers previously going to waste are significant. An example is if we recycle one aluminium can we can save enough energy to run a television set for five hours. That is well worth doing. The benefits to this community are enormous.
We have to clean up the mess and fix the Mutual Recognition Act problem. The model was flawed. The idea is great and there is much support for recycling. Many people benefit from it. However, it is another mess we have to clean up ...
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Water Extraction Licence, Stylo Station –
Tabling of Information
Tabling of Information
Mr WOOD to MINISTER for LAND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Madam Speaker, I wish I could replay some of the speeches in the 1990s from the CLP on container deposit legislation. Talk about Lazarus! My question is about …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask the question, under Standing Order 112, be ruled out of order.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Continue, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Flippant.
My question is about good, sustainable agricultural development. On the Water Resources website it says:
- In partnership with the community conserve and manage water resources in a transparent, equitable and sustainable manner.
If transparent, can you table all supporting paperwork required for the Stylo farm, including the 10-year crop plan which is required in this application? Can you table subsequent evidence that this supporting information has been assessed and approved by the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries.
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for his question. I am glad you are coming for a briefing today, member for Nelson, on this very important topic - an opportunity that has not been taken up by any of the opposition. Clearly, the opposition wants to play politics around this without getting to the substance of this application for a water licence …
Mr Giles: Shame!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: It is shameful. I pick up on the interjection from the Chief Minister; it is a shame because you always have an opportunity to get briefings from the government on all sorts of issues. You might learn something if you came for a briefing.
In answer to your question, member for Nelson, you have referred to a number of documents …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! The minister has the call.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I do not think the member for Barkly would be approved as a member for the CLP.
Anyway, you have referred to a number of documents that were used in determining the application. In answer to your question of whether I can table them: no. I cannot table them because I do not have them. The issue of water licences, member for Nelson, comes under the purview of the Water Controller, not the minister. Therefore, I do not have access to those documents; I have never seen the documents you are referring to. The only document I have seen is one that is publicly available on DLRM’s website, which is the statement of reasons that was issued by the Water Controller in compliance with the act, which says he has to publish the reasons for the issue of the water licence.
This debate defines the opposition on this topic. On this side of the House, we are a government that is pro-development. We are absolutely keen - unashamedly so - to have agricultural development across the Northern Territory. All the former Labor government did was stand in the way of development. They did not want to see development for Indigenous people, or in the agricultural arena. They sat on their hands. I am looking forward to this afternoon because when this motion from the member for Nightcliff comes on we are going to tell a few home truths. You guys will be put right back in your place - back in your hole where you belong.
Member for Namatjira –
Alleged Comments
Alleged Comments
Ms FYLES to CHIEF MINISTER
Alison Anderson called you ‘a little boy’. She is in your Cabinet. She said that an apology to the families affected by forced adoptions would be disingenuous. She said Cabinet agreed with her. Do you agree with Alison Anderson that your apology today is disingenuous?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nightcliff for her question. It is a very sensitive issue, and I will be careful not to pre-empt debate on a motion that will be in the Chamber later today.
My government supports and endorses the apology made by the Commonwealth parliament last Thursday. We acknowledge the past practices and policies of forced removal and the impact on women particularly, both in the Northern Territory and around Australia. We, as a government and Cabinet, offer our heartfelt sympathy. I, as an individual and the Chief Minister, offer my sympathy.
However, let us be clear why Cabinet took that position. The abhorrent practices occurred pre-1978 under the Commonwealth government, before the Northern Territory government came about. The Territory was under Commonwealth administration when this occurred. Let us also be clear that the apology arose from a report made by the federal parliament’s Community Affairs Reference Committee. In its terms of reference it included reference to the role, if any, of the Commonwealth government, its policies and practices in contribution to forced adoption.
For those reasons, we considered it would be inappropriate and disingenuous for us to make a separate apology, and we stand by that. It does not mean that as individuals and as a government we do not feel the pain and do not offer our heartfelt sympathy. It is a blight on the history of Australia, and on the Northern Territory. However, the fact remains we were not the government of the Northern Territory prior to 1978. In the administration component, we were under the Commonwealth government.
There will be greater debate this afternoon, member for Nightcliff. I accept the merits of your question, but that is the basis of how we came about our decision.
Container Deposit Legislation –
Continuation
Mr HIGGINS to MINISTER for LANDS, PLANNING and the ENVIRONMENT
Can the minister please tell the House why the government is persisting with the container deposit scheme?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Daly for his question, which I appreciate. There is a simple answer. This scheme is about the people and for the people. Our decisions are the reaction to the people’s attachment to this scheme. Territorians love the scheme because we are no different to anywhere else in the world. We all like a few extra coins jingling in our pockets and everyone feels good about doing their bit for the environment; it goes without saying. Other reasons are that families and kids do it together and it can be a team effort for clubs. It is also useful to set goals and other achievements.
The popularity of the scheme has been growing steadily and returns now about 40% of containers sold. That is about $100 000 a week going to families, schools, community groups, organisations and businesses. Let us not forget that Territorians have paid millions of dollars for drinks to the drink companies. They paid the surcharge that came in when the recycling scheme started. This was known as the deposit that would be refunded when the containers were taken back to depots.
As I just stated, nowhere near 100% of the containers have been returned, so the drinks companies have pocketed millions by not returning the deposits. The drinks giants took all the cake, returning just a few crumbs.
Territorians have been let down badly by the previous Labor government because it was a poorly-developed scheme. They had the chance to use and draft strong, robust legislation that would stack up. They needed a draught horse, what they designed was a donkey.
We are not just talking about the popularity of the scheme to individual Territorians. Groups, clubs, sporting teams, schools, and community groups have taken to it with enthusiasm. Many schools took to collecting with gusto. Students moved the team activity and extra funds for schools are always useful. Seventy-five schools received a grant to buy trailers for the collection of containers. Can you imagine what it means to organisations to be able to collect cans and get ready cash they can use for activities and other supplies?
The scheme has generated income for communities and presented an opportunity for small businesses to prosper through recycling. One enterprising health worker inspired her community to clean up the environment in exchange for healthy snacks. They loved the communal activity and the land was picked bare of containers. Every time a vehicle went into town they took a bag or two of containers. Healthy snacks came back and everyone was happy.
As our Chief Minister stated, we are in government solely to work for the people. The scheme is just one example of how we will do our upmost to support the people. Again, we are fixing the messes of the previous government. It is not good enough and it is hypocritical of you guys to sit there and say you got it right. You got it wrong!
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Member for Namatjira –
Employment of Daughter
Employment of Daughter
Mr VATSKALIS to CHIEF MINISTER
Is giving the member for Namatjira’s daughter a job in your department - a job she did not even apply for - part of your agreement to get Alison Anderson to stop calling you a little boy?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I did not even hear if that was a question or a statement.
Mr VATSKALIS: I am quite happy to repeat it, Madam Speaker. Was giving the member for Namatjira’s daughter a job in your department - a job she did not even apply for - part of your agreement to get Alison to stop calling you a little boy?
Mr GILES: Thank you very much. Here we go back to the grubby tactics of Labor, attacking the person. I am not sure if Labor has raised one policy point today. Have they spoken about any of their policies? I do not think there has been anything; it is all about attacking the person.
This is the frame of dirty dealings the Leader of the Opposition likes to work in. This is her frame and we knew this would happen. We asked, ‘What will Labor do? What will the opposition do?’ They will attack the man. They will not play the ball, they will attack the man.
This question is very similar to the questions and the references to Mataranka and the water licence. I did not even know about the water licence until I opened the paper. ‘Oh, the Water Controller has made a decision. How good is that for developing the regions?’
I opened the paper and saw that someone was working in the Chief Minister’s department. I did not even know they were working in the Chief Minister’s department, but I was very happy to read it. I will tell you why I did not know that, because staffing matters are an operational perspective in how the department decides who it employs. I do not tell the department who they should employ or should not employ. I did not even know about that until I read the paper …
Ms Walker: Seriously!
Mr GILES: That is serious, member for Nhulunbuy. I had no idea.
I will go back to the original point; that is, you want to attack the person. Here is a challenge. How about you develop some policies and come into this Chamber and debate on policy and performance ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 113. Your entire Question Time has been devoted to Cash for Containers, a Labor initiative. Do some of your own work. Instead of saying, ‘I do not know’, get started on some work.
Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated, there is no point of order.
Mr GILES: Thank you very much. Talk about leading with the chin! They want to talk about container deposit legislation. I refer to my colleague, the minister for the Environment, who fought up hill and down dale about how bad your legislation was. He provided options and solutions, and looked at a range of models and opportunities to make this work. We are committed to this scheme but, once again, as my colleagues have said, this is a Labor mess we have to clean up.
I will go back to the point. Where are any of your policies? Do you have a policy on anything …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 113: relevance. This is a very direct question in regard to nepotism within the government which the Chief Minister has not yet answered.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, you have the call.
Mr GILES: This is highly relevant. The premise of the question about someone who works in the department is an operational matter. I do not know who works in departments and who does not. That is the answer to that part.
The other point is, does any one of the eight members on the other side, or the member for Nelson, have a policy? Do you have a platform on any issue ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 113: relevance. The question was in regard to nepotism. He says he does not know, because he does not know about the water rights at Mataranka, he does not know about the nepotism and the job for Alison’s daughter. Really, you do not know?
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! That is not a point of order. You cannot come in here and make statements …
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order, continue, Chief Minister.
Mr GILES: You make all these innuendos and try to attack people. I go back to my point, which is highly relevant. This is the House of debate; we debate policies and programs. Today we are today about your program on container deposit legislation, which was flawed.
On a policy framework, you do not have one policy. You sit in this Chamber without a policy. You just sit here and argue and play the man, not the ball. Start playing the ball and get some policies ...
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, your time has expired.
Container Deposit Legislation –
Response from Report to Government
Response from Report to Government
Ms LEE to MINISTER for LANDS, PLANNING and the ENVIRONMENT
Can you please tell us what the response was from the CDS report to the government?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the important question from the member for Arnhem. First, I go back to what I said before about the legislation being a donkey. No one on this side of the House or on your side of the House - not even the member for Nelson - disagrees that cash for cans is a good idea. It is all about the model you chose. You could have got it right, but you got it so wrong.
I will read excerpts of a letter - and also table that letter - which the government received recently about our decision to support and continue the scheme. It said:
- My staff asked me to write to you and to personally thank you and the government for standing up to the big business and fighting to keep the scheme alive. Only half an hour before your announcement, we were discussing our fate and I was fearful that I would have to send 30 people home to tell their families they had no job.
Then you made the announcement and instead I asked the General Manager to buy a case of VB to celebrate at the end of the shift with the whole team, we had a toast to the NT government.
We have 30 people that are still employed, and so many community groups, Variety, scouts, disability, 100s of households, and most recently the bishop of the catholic church who are also so delighted. Aside from having the significant environmental impact that cannot be disputed, it has delivered so much more economically and socially to the community.
Those remarks came from Narelle Anderson, Managing Director of Envirobank, one of the main depots in Darwin. She was telling a story about a business and its impact. If the business keeps going its owners make a profit and support their families, and staff keep their jobs and support their families. Together they spend their hard-won dollars in the community and, as the money circulates, the community prospers. As Narelle pointed out, the scheme has a significant environmental impact and also delivers so much more economically and socially to the community.
Narelle was also telling a story about Territorians who have taken to the Cash for Containers scheme, as it is fondly known. Many collect containers for themselves and their children. Many others are collecting to raise funds for community groups. They love recycling because it is good for the environment and the community. These are the reasons the government has supported the scheme and is keeping it going until we can secure a permanent exemption from COAG. It is about supporting Territorians, our people.
Narelle also mentioned that many remote communities have cleaned up their towns by collecting cans and obtaining refunds, and are proud of their new-look landscapes.
Envirobank closed its doors on 18 March when Coca-Cola said it would no longer take part in the scheme. Coca-Cola stopped returning deposits to people, yet it collected through putting up the price of its product. The company gave Envirobank only seven days following the 18 March pull-out to take stock and finalise payments.
The sad thing is, if Labor had done the right thing and had the model right, we would not be in this position today ...
Ms Lawrie: What a load of rubbish!
Mr CHANDLER: No, you are wrong and you know it. You mucked it up …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, you time has expired.
Ministerial Travel –
Publish Details
Publish Details
Mr VOWLES to CHIEF MINISTER referred to MINISTER for TOURISM and MAJOR EVENTS
Before the election, the CLP promised to publish all details and costs of ministerial travel on a website. When will all details of the minister for Tourism’s two-week junket to Europe be published on the web, including his flights, accommodation, meals and drinks?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question. We are going straight to the personal attack all over again. This question should be directed to the minster for Tourism to answer. In fact, the question should have been, ‘How did you sell the Territory? How did you promote the Territory?’ …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 113. The question was quite specific: when will the website publish details of the two-week junket Matt Conlan took to Europe courtesy of the taxpayer? It is about accountability.
Madam SPEAKER: Opposition Leader, please refer to members by their electorate name.
Mr GILES: Madam Speaker, there was no point of order. I will return to my answer. Why would the member for Johnston not ask how well the member for Greatorex, the minister for Tourism, sold the Territory?
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I have continually asked for a briefing on his junket ...
Madam SPEAKER: What is your standing order?
Mr VOWLES: Standing Order 113: relevance. I have continuously asked for a briefing from the minister for Tourism and he has not provided it.
Mr GILES: Hang on! That is not relevant. A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: It is not a point of order.
Mr GILES: The real point of order and the real relevance is why did he make this personal attack? Why was he not talking about tourism?
I love answering these questions, but on this one I have already had a chat to the minister for Tourism and I know the fantastic outcomes. I ask the minister for Tourism to provide some value and benefits of his trip ...
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 113: relevance. We asked when the details would be available.
Madam SPEAKER: The minister for Tourism has the call.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Speaker, they love to say it was two weeks; it has gone from 16 days to 14. It certainly felt like 14 or 16 days’ worth of work, but it was nothing like that. It was probably six-and-a-half or seven days. I would love to see the briefings you have been asking for ...
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I would like to welcome the Tourism minister back to Australia …
Madam SPEAKER: What is the standing order?
Mr VOWLES: It is 113: relevance.
Madam SPEAKER: He is answering the question. Please be seated.
Mr Vowles: I am not going to stand here …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Johnston, be seated!
Mr Vowles: I have asked for briefings. If he does not know what his ministers are doing …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Johnston! Be seated! You have the call, minister.
Mr CONLAN: I would love to see some of the evidence of briefings, or whatever it is. Of course, you have not really edified yourself in respect with the tourism industry and the department of Tourism with your slander and slur towards the public servants and the Chief Executive Officer. No one in the tourism business has any time for you, mate. I certainly do not have any time for you, and I will not be giving you any briefings or any tours of the new tourism facility …
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr CONLAN: You can send someone else, because we have no time …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, please be seated.
Mr Vowles: Sit down!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Johnston, you are on a warning!
Mr VOWLES: Standing Order 113: relevance, please. I have asked a question, I would like it answered.
Madam SPEAKER: You are still on a warning. Minister, you have the call.
Mr CONLAN: I have made that abundantly clear; we have no time for you. I will not be providing you with any tours, or anything whatsoever until we feel like it, and you can show a little respect to the people of the tourism industry, including the Chief Executive Officer of Tourism and the Tourism department and, even perhaps, a little to the government of the Northern Territory, which is doing an enormous amount of work to clean up the mess you left. You left the Territory literally haemorrhaging for the last 11 years …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Relevance – Standing Order 113. It was a very precise question about a website and publishing details. The minister has not answered that question in regard to his travel at all.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, you have the call.
Mr CONLAN: You are exactly right. I am in the process of giving you some of the details about the trip. We talk about junkets, about the state of the Arafura Games, which these guys claim, with such indignation, we were stripping and ruining. Who destroyed singlehandedly the Arafura Games? It was the member for Johnston in his capacity as ministerial advisor for the previous failed Sports minister, Karl Hampton. That is why there was no Arafura Games, because of the junkets you continually took, to no avail ...
Madam SPEAKER: Your time has expired, minister. Member for Drysdale.
Ms Lawrie: I have a supplementary question, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: I had already given the member for Drysdale the call.
Container Deposit Legislation –
Legal Costs
Ms FINOCCHIARO to ATTORNEY-GENERAL and MINISTER for JUSTICE
Can the minister inform the House of the costs involved in the legal battle with Coca-Cola, Schweppes, and Lion over the container deposit legislation: a battle which was predicted by this government when in opposition, and which the Labor government was clearly warned of in their own legal advice?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I recall the original debates on the container deposit legislation that was introduced. Both the current minister for the Environment and I stood here for hours and pointed out to the government of the day that there were serious flaws in the legislative structure they had put together. Not only did we describe it, we described it chapter and verse, and what would happen if the Northern Territory government of the time, the Labor Party, did not do its job properly.
Everything that was predicted at the time has come to pass. Unfortunately, this irresponsible, reckless government clutched on to a legal opinion - which they claimed was put together by one of the foremost constitutional lawyers in this country - of what would carry the day. It turns out they never had a legal opinion in a finalised form. They had a draft legal opinion which did not, in any way, suggest they were out of the woods. In fact, it was heavily qualified, with all sorts of warnings about the issues we raised in this parliament. They were dishonest and misrepresented what they had in the legal opinion at the time. Therefore, we know it is dishonest and a party without integrity ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Why is the Attorney-General denying the opposition access to the Solicitor-General?
Madam SPEAKER: What is your standing order?
Ms LAWRIE: Standing Order 113: relevance. He talked about the legal briefing and the legal technicalities, yet he denies opposition access to the Solicitor-General of the Northern Territory, which is unprecedented.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. They were utterly, completely and culpably dishonest in what they said to this House. Small wonder we could not get that legal opinion from them. They were saying, ‘Oh my goodness gracious me, this will all be sweetness and light’. We argued they had failed – and failed utterly - at the time.
When we came to government we realised this scheme was in deep trouble by virtue of the fact this Labor Party had been utterly dishonest with this House and with Territorians. Now the taxpayer has to foot the bill for the inevitable legal bill that will be thrust in our face.
We, as a government, are prepared to pay for the legal bill, the legacy of that party’s incompetence, because we want to defend something which is not only a right for Territorians but is also a good idea. It is something we supported at the time. This former government should be embarrassed about the deceit.
We say to Coca-Cola Amatil, ‘We will fight you on the beaches and we will fight you in the towns’ ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Deceit has been ruled as offensive. He should do it by way of substantive motion or withdraw.
Mr Elferink: If you want us to do it by way of substantive motion, I am happy to.
Ms LAWRIE: Bring it on.
Mr Elferink: Your incompetence has been magnificent.
Ms LAWRIE: Withdraw it!
Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated.
Ms Lawrie: You ruled on ‘deceit’ before.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Member for Nelson …
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, I presume we will not sell Coke in Parliament House anymore.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Please be seated.
Ms Lawrie: So ‘deceit’ is okay from now on in the Chamber?
Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. There is no point of order. The member for Nelson has the call.
Water Management
Mr WOOD to MINISTER for LAND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
The Howard East Water Advisory Committee has not met for nearly a year and I do not know how long it has been since the other water advisory committees have sat. Has your government scrapped the water advisory committees and, if so, does that mean a community-based process of looking at sustainable water use has been ditched for a non-transparent departmental approach to how water is managed in the Territory?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for his question. No, the water advisory committees have not been ditched. We use the advice of water advisory committees; it is all taken into account when decisions are made around water planning in the Northern Territory.
When I think about the political paradigm we have now, there is no love lost between the member for Nelson and the Labor Party anymore. There is no real relationship. Every time he stands he will put them in the firing line when we talk about these issues because the Labor Party, when it was in government, had a policy vacuum on water.
We are picking up the pieces and forging ahead because we want to see development of our agricultural resources. It is as simple as that. We will do it in an environmentally sustainable way.
Many things will be spoken about when debating the motion this afternoon. I am not going to pre-empt what comes out this afternoon, but it will be very interesting. The opposition will feel quite ashamed when they realise where they have placed themselves in this debate.
We have much discussion and this is fast becoming a bit of a hoary old chestnut. Hopefully, this afternoon’s debate will settle all of the issues which have been raised about this licence. I am very much looking forward to the debate.
Member for Nelson, things have changed with respect to water allocations and you will learn that this afternoon. I was going to save this for this afternoon but I am happy to table it now. This is the decision by the Water Controller in respect of the issue of the water licence for the MacFarlane’s property. I table the document so it gives an opportunity for the ignorant ones on the other side of the House …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Why did the Treasurer have that and not you?
Madam SPEAKER: It is not a point of order.
Ms LAWRIE: It has your hands all over it …
Madam SPEAKER: There is not a point of order. Please be seated.
Mr GILES: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker! We printed it off the publicly-available website and handed it over to table because you do not know how to read a website.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Minister, you have the call.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Instead of tabling the one the Treasurer gave me, I will table the one I have, Leader of the Opposition, if that is a little more satisfying for you.
The debate this afternoon will be interesting. As I said earlier, we will clearly show this afternoon there was a policy vacuum in the opposition when they were in government. They had a long time to deal with all types of water issues and the sustainable development of agriculture. They did nothing with it; it is apparent for all to see. They will stand condemned and ashamed this afternoon, which will define them as a former government, and their priorities …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Written Question Paper.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016