Mr MITCHELL - 1996-10-08
What progress has been made towards the introduction of more stringent environmental protection legislation in the Territory?
Mr Bailey interjecting.
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I have not even commenced answering the question and I have had an interjection from the member for Wanguri.
Mr Bailey: You have a few more to go yet.
Mr REED: That is a real demonstration of the rudeness we have come to expect. I hope that people listening to the broadcast of Question Time are more interested in the answer to this question than is the member for Wanguri.
The government has, of course, a commitment to managing the Northern Territory environment in an effective way to ensure that it provides the best opportunities for present and future Territorians. In line with this, a waste management and pollution control bill is being drafted. That ...
Mr Bailey: You brought out a policy 3 years ago and did nothing about it.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr REED: There will be a series of public consultative processes, enabling broad community input to the formulation of this very important environmental legislation. The legislation will include more stringent penalties in relation to infringement of environmental ...
Ms Martin: Such as oil in the harbour?
Mr REED: I will come to the honourable member's interjection shortly. I am pleased she has raised the matter.
That legislation will improve the enforcement of pollution control in the Territory. In the meantime, given the time it takes to develop legislation of this kind, a decision has been made by the government, following a report from the working party that was established early this year, to speed up the introduction of more stringent environmental penalties. A bill will be introduced during these sittings to put in place more stringent penalties. This will require complementary amendments to the Water Act and the Prevention of Pollution of Waters by Oil Act, and to mining legislation. The 4 penalty levels established in the bill will be specified for offences contained in the relevant environmental legislation such as the Water Act. In determining the penalty level, the following criteria will apply ...
Page 1625
Mr Bailey interjecting.
Mr REED: Mr Speaker, the member for Wanguri purports to be interested in these matters, but ...
Mr Bailey: What have you done about Dundee Beach?
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr REED: ... when very important information is being provided, he does not have the good grace or the good manners to sit there and listen or to allow people who are listening to this broadcast to hear what the government is doing for their benefit.
The criteria that will apply will be: whether there was intent or negligence in the commission of the offence, the scale and magnitude of the actual or potential environmental impact resulting from the infringement, and the risk of environmental damage which could result from the failure to adequately implement appropriate management systems. Based on those broad criteria, the proposed penalties will match those that have been, or are being, introduced nationally. A level 1 offence by a person will attract a fine of $25 000 to $250 000 and/or a custodial sentence of up to 5 years and, by a body corporate, a fine of $125 000 to $1.25m. For a level 2 offence, the penalty for a person will range from $10 000 to $100 000 and, for a body corporate, from $50 000 to $0.5m. The ranges for a level 3 offence are $5000 to $50 000 for a person and $25 000 to $250 000 for a body corporate. The figures for a level 4 offence are up to $5000 for a person and up to $25 000 for a body corporate.
Under the Water Act, for example, the former maximum penalty was $50 000. In keeping with both national and international trends to impose stringent penalties, this government is meeting its commitments. Under the new framework, a level 1 offence, causing serious environmental damage either intentionally or through negligence, would attract the highest penalty. A level 2 offence would involve serious environmental damage without intent, or moderate environmental damage with intent. A level 3 offence would involve moderate environmental damage without intent. A level 4 offence would be for minor environmental damage or pollution. Once a penalty level has been specified for a particular offence, it will be enforced through the courts, using the act which creates the offence - for example, the Water Act. Those penalties will vastly improve adherence to environmental standards throughout the Northern Territory. It is not that we have had a particularly large problem, but it is timely to revisit these issues and to have in place legislation that will cater for the continuing growth of the Northern Territory. We never hear much about growth from members opposite because they do not want to talk about success. They want to talk about doom and gloom and negatives.
I come to the comments by the member for Fannie Bay about hydraulic oil being leaked into Darwin Harbour. There was a very selective bit of quoting on ABC television news last night. The member for Fannie Bay is also pretty good at selective quoting. That reflects her background and her current desire to continue as a journalist rather than a member of parliament. The honourable member and other members would be aware that I did answer this question earlier in the year. It is a shame that members opposite are reflecting again on the
Page 1626
professionalism and the integrity of members of the public service who investigated the complaint that came originally from the member for Arnhem.
Members interjecting.
Mr REED: They are creating a great deal of noise. They do not want to hear the information that is provided to them.
A complaint was lodged and it was duly investigated. Why would officers of the Department of Lands, Planning and Environment or the Water Resources Branch of the Power and Water Authority, as it then was, want to cover it up if in fact they found that there had been leakage of hydraulic oil? It would not be in their interests to do that. It is not in their interests from a personal point of view because they have to live in the community. It is not in their interests from a professional point of view. Members opposite are criticising their integrity and their professionalism. They are suggesting that officers who investigated this matter covered it up.
Ms Martin: You are the minister.
Mr REED: No, you cannot flick-pass it from the officers to the minister. I did not go and investigate it.
Ms Martin: The system ...
Mr REED: You cannot flick-pass it to the system either.
The complaint was investigated and it was found that there had been no leakage of hydraulic oil. There was no evidence for the terrible suggestions put forward by honourable members opposite. The fact is that they have been sold a pup by a complainant who has other complaints against a previous employer. He is running out of options. He happens to be grinding his axe on your face at the moment. That is your problem and you should be aware of it. You are being used to pursue his cause. This matter dates back 7 or 8 months. That is how hard-pressed the opposition is to pick up a real issue.
I refer to the letter that was quoted from last night on the ABC news. This quote was used by the ABC:
After examining the monitoring program, it is clear that it was not designed to include monitoring for oil
pollution emitting from either the barge or any other operations.
What a great shame the integrity of the ABC was not protected by its reading the letter further! The letter, from Mr N.A. Watson, director, water resources, continued:
Your concern therefore regarding escape of lubricating oil from the barge could not reasonably have been
expected to be identified in the monitoring results. On the other hand, after you first expressed your concerns,
I understand that the
Page 1627
monitoring team was requested to undertake visual inspections and reported it could find no evidence of
oil leakage.
It is a great shame that the integrity of the ABC was not upheld. That information was withheld from the people of the Northern Territory but a more emotive part of the letter was used to try to put across a message. The same practices are used by members opposite. I am sure that the people listening to this broadcast across the Northern Territory, who now have the full story, will understand that both the member for Fannie Bay and the member for Arnhem were only muckraking when they tried to cast aspersions on the integrity and professionalism of officers of the public service who investigated this complaint and found that there was no evidence to sustain it.
Page 1628
Mr Bailey interjecting.
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I have not even commenced answering the question and I have had an interjection from the member for Wanguri.
Mr Bailey: You have a few more to go yet.
Mr REED: That is a real demonstration of the rudeness we have come to expect. I hope that people listening to the broadcast of Question Time are more interested in the answer to this question than is the member for Wanguri.
The government has, of course, a commitment to managing the Northern Territory environment in an effective way to ensure that it provides the best opportunities for present and future Territorians. In line with this, a waste management and pollution control bill is being drafted. That ...
Mr Bailey: You brought out a policy 3 years ago and did nothing about it.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr REED: There will be a series of public consultative processes, enabling broad community input to the formulation of this very important environmental legislation. The legislation will include more stringent penalties in relation to infringement of environmental ...
Ms Martin: Such as oil in the harbour?
Mr REED: I will come to the honourable member's interjection shortly. I am pleased she has raised the matter.
That legislation will improve the enforcement of pollution control in the Territory. In the meantime, given the time it takes to develop legislation of this kind, a decision has been made by the government, following a report from the working party that was established early this year, to speed up the introduction of more stringent environmental penalties. A bill will be introduced during these sittings to put in place more stringent penalties. This will require complementary amendments to the Water Act and the Prevention of Pollution of Waters by Oil Act, and to mining legislation. The 4 penalty levels established in the bill will be specified for offences contained in the relevant environmental legislation such as the Water Act. In determining the penalty level, the following criteria will apply ...
Page 1625
Mr Bailey interjecting.
Mr REED: Mr Speaker, the member for Wanguri purports to be interested in these matters, but ...
Mr Bailey: What have you done about Dundee Beach?
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr REED: ... when very important information is being provided, he does not have the good grace or the good manners to sit there and listen or to allow people who are listening to this broadcast to hear what the government is doing for their benefit.
The criteria that will apply will be: whether there was intent or negligence in the commission of the offence, the scale and magnitude of the actual or potential environmental impact resulting from the infringement, and the risk of environmental damage which could result from the failure to adequately implement appropriate management systems. Based on those broad criteria, the proposed penalties will match those that have been, or are being, introduced nationally. A level 1 offence by a person will attract a fine of $25 000 to $250 000 and/or a custodial sentence of up to 5 years and, by a body corporate, a fine of $125 000 to $1.25m. For a level 2 offence, the penalty for a person will range from $10 000 to $100 000 and, for a body corporate, from $50 000 to $0.5m. The ranges for a level 3 offence are $5000 to $50 000 for a person and $25 000 to $250 000 for a body corporate. The figures for a level 4 offence are up to $5000 for a person and up to $25 000 for a body corporate.
Under the Water Act, for example, the former maximum penalty was $50 000. In keeping with both national and international trends to impose stringent penalties, this government is meeting its commitments. Under the new framework, a level 1 offence, causing serious environmental damage either intentionally or through negligence, would attract the highest penalty. A level 2 offence would involve serious environmental damage without intent, or moderate environmental damage with intent. A level 3 offence would involve moderate environmental damage without intent. A level 4 offence would be for minor environmental damage or pollution. Once a penalty level has been specified for a particular offence, it will be enforced through the courts, using the act which creates the offence - for example, the Water Act. Those penalties will vastly improve adherence to environmental standards throughout the Northern Territory. It is not that we have had a particularly large problem, but it is timely to revisit these issues and to have in place legislation that will cater for the continuing growth of the Northern Territory. We never hear much about growth from members opposite because they do not want to talk about success. They want to talk about doom and gloom and negatives.
I come to the comments by the member for Fannie Bay about hydraulic oil being leaked into Darwin Harbour. There was a very selective bit of quoting on ABC television news last night. The member for Fannie Bay is also pretty good at selective quoting. That reflects her background and her current desire to continue as a journalist rather than a member of parliament. The honourable member and other members would be aware that I did answer this question earlier in the year. It is a shame that members opposite are reflecting again on the
Page 1626
professionalism and the integrity of members of the public service who investigated the complaint that came originally from the member for Arnhem.
Members interjecting.
Mr REED: They are creating a great deal of noise. They do not want to hear the information that is provided to them.
A complaint was lodged and it was duly investigated. Why would officers of the Department of Lands, Planning and Environment or the Water Resources Branch of the Power and Water Authority, as it then was, want to cover it up if in fact they found that there had been leakage of hydraulic oil? It would not be in their interests to do that. It is not in their interests from a personal point of view because they have to live in the community. It is not in their interests from a professional point of view. Members opposite are criticising their integrity and their professionalism. They are suggesting that officers who investigated this matter covered it up.
Ms Martin: You are the minister.
Mr REED: No, you cannot flick-pass it from the officers to the minister. I did not go and investigate it.
Ms Martin: The system ...
Mr REED: You cannot flick-pass it to the system either.
The complaint was investigated and it was found that there had been no leakage of hydraulic oil. There was no evidence for the terrible suggestions put forward by honourable members opposite. The fact is that they have been sold a pup by a complainant who has other complaints against a previous employer. He is running out of options. He happens to be grinding his axe on your face at the moment. That is your problem and you should be aware of it. You are being used to pursue his cause. This matter dates back 7 or 8 months. That is how hard-pressed the opposition is to pick up a real issue.
I refer to the letter that was quoted from last night on the ABC news. This quote was used by the ABC:
After examining the monitoring program, it is clear that it was not designed to include monitoring for oil
pollution emitting from either the barge or any other operations.
What a great shame the integrity of the ABC was not protected by its reading the letter further! The letter, from Mr N.A. Watson, director, water resources, continued:
Your concern therefore regarding escape of lubricating oil from the barge could not reasonably have been
expected to be identified in the monitoring results. On the other hand, after you first expressed your concerns,
I understand that the
Page 1627
monitoring team was requested to undertake visual inspections and reported it could find no evidence of
oil leakage.
It is a great shame that the integrity of the ABC was not upheld. That information was withheld from the people of the Northern Territory but a more emotive part of the letter was used to try to put across a message. The same practices are used by members opposite. I am sure that the people listening to this broadcast across the Northern Territory, who now have the full story, will understand that both the member for Fannie Bay and the member for Arnhem were only muckraking when they tried to cast aspersions on the integrity and professionalism of officers of the public service who investigated this complaint and found that there was no evidence to sustain it.
Page 1628
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016