2013-08-22
Madam Speaker Purick took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of Year 6 students from St Joseph’s College, Katherine, accompanied by their teacher, Brad Henry. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House and Darwin.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Have a nice time here.
Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of Year 10 students from Casuarina Secondary College, accompanied by their teacher, Mitch Musulin. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to you and hope you enjoy your time at Parliament House.
Members: Hear, hear!
Honourable members, you would be aware that during Question Time yesterday there were many visitors in the gallery. Subsequent to Question Time I received quite a few complaints from the Fibrecraft Guild and other people who were present in the gallery at the tone, manner and behaviour of this parliament. I understand and accept that it is the middle of the federal election campaign and things can get a bit testy; however, you are being watched by many people, including the school groups, and they take home stories to their families and parents. This week’s performance has not been good.
Honourable members, I ask you to familiarise yourself with standing orders and reflect upon your performance.
Honourable members, I am also very concerned about the media release from the Leader of the Opposition. It has called into question, and casts doubt on, the integrity of the Chair of this Chamber.
Honourable members, I am concerned there is a misunderstanding regarding the separation of the presiding officer, which I am, and the Chair, and how that is viewed by honourable members. If it is construed that this Chair is aligned with the government, that is of great concern to me. I will be calling on the Leader of the Opposition to apologise by 5 pm this afternoon, and I will be writing a formal letter to the Leader of the Opposition. As you all know, I have worked very hard in this job to maintain independence and be fair at all times. This is of great concern to me and this parliament. Are there any questions?
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent this House from censuring the Chief Minister and the CLP government for:
gifting the CLP candidate for Lingiari, Tina MacFarlane, water rights worth millions of dollars
stripping Indigenous Territorians of their water rights and instead handing them to their own candidate
threatening the water supply to the Ngukurr community and saying that Cabinet and ministers had no involvement in the decision, but then refusing to release the correspondence between the CLP and the Water Controller
basing their decision to change the science on a phone call
Ignoring science and modelling that exposes the risk of environmental and ecological damage to Elsey National Park and its surrounding water systems
ignoring the rights of other water users of the Tindall Limestone Aquifer, including recreational fishers, traditional owners, and other pastoralists
giving the federal Coalition candidate water rights against the policy of the federal Coalition
refusing to revoke the water allocation grant until a proper and transparent process can be put in place that involves detailed community consultation ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! It is customary for the censure motion to be circulated so members can see it …
Ms Walker: It is coming. It is on the way.
Madam SPEAKER: Please pass it to the Clerk. Continue, member for Nightcliff.
Ms FYLES: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The amount available for extraction under the licence exceeds the combined total of the other 15 existing water extraction licences for the aquifer. These existing licences are issued on an annual basis. The MacFarlane’s licence was issued for 10 years – a decade – a huge amount of water for a very long time.
In the process of awarding the licence, the estimated sustainable yield from the aquifer was increased from 19 500 ML per year to 36 000 ML per year. Based on instruments published in the Gazette between 7 November 2012 to 25 March 2013, the estimated sustainable yield of the aquifer increased by 16 500 ML per year. That is a huge amount of water to suddenly find, possibly from rubbery science based on one phone call.
Representations from the concerned individuals and other organisations, such as the North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance, AFANT, the Environment Centre, Power and Water Corporation and others, have all been ignored, dismissed in the awarding of this licence.
Government already had a well-established working group of local community representatives, along with experts, to give sound advice on the best way to use available water - a process, a plan, all of that thrown out. Other landholders, unlike Mrs MacFarlane, withdrew their applications pending finalisation of the water allocation use plan in accordance with normal protocols. In the CLP’s eyes, their rights are less important than the financial interests of their CLP candidate for Lingiari.
Predictably, to save their own necks, members opposite will construe this critique as an attack on the Controller of Water. It is no such thing.
CLP ministers and members are up to their necks in this. This is why they will not release the documents under Freedom of Information in relation to this licence for public scrutiny - blacked out, not released.
Water is a precious resource. It sustains eco-systems and supports agriculture, primary production and recreation. It is essential to our survival as a species on this planet, but it is also a very valuable resource, a financially valuable resource, and that is what appeals to the CLP. That is how they view water. They want to ensure the CLP member, Tina MacFarlane, reaps the financial benefits. This is a fundamental difference between the members on this side of the House and those opposite.
We see water as a precious resource for all Territorians, for future generations. We need to get it right. You see water as a financial resource for CLP members. It is not just water, we have seen the member for Arnhem view taxpayers’ money as nothing more than a fund for her $22 000 fuel bill. We have seen the minister for child protection’s daughter given a $170 000 pay rise in the minister’s department.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! If the member opposite wishes to engage in activities which could only be described as defamatory in nature, then she should do so by way of substantive motion. I do not see in here references to any of those matters she is referring to. She should stick to the matters outlined in the censure motion.
Madam SPEAKER: (Sound loss, unable to hear Madam Speaker)
Mr ELFERINK: Yes I know, but she is talking about the minister’s daughter and she is talking about a fuel card. Those are other issues, and we will happily take any censure motion they like on that. This censure motion is about water licences.
Madam SPEAKER: (Sound loss, unable to hear Madam Speaker)
Ms FYLES: Thank you, Madam Speaker. On this side of the House we treat taxpayers’ funds preciously, but those opposite us do not. Eleven former CLP candidates and members have been gifted taxpayer-funded jobs; it is the CLP DNA. It is a reasonable expectation of Territorians that decisions made by government on the utilisation of our precious assets, such as water resources, should be based on good science and transparent process, free from political influence.
The processes involved in the water extraction licence granted to CLP candidate for Lingiari, Tina MacFarlane, and her husband do not pass these simple tests. They worked backwards, they decided to gift her the water and then made up the science afterwards. Their so-called science was based on a phone call.
Our land and water resources are precious and Territorians expect the decisions to allocate such resources to be based on the best available information, not a phone call. How convenient when people want to call into question that science that the advice was not written, it was not available, it was just a phone call.
There is widespread concern about this licence in the community generally, especially those who rely on the Tindall Limestone Aquifer. Some of these concerns are summarised in the memo from the Chief Executive of the Department of Land Resource Management to his minister on 14 December 2012. These concerns bring the risks associated with the licence into very sharp focus. It is very important that these risks are put on the public record so Territorians can form their own views on the merits of the licence granted to the CLP candidate for Lingiari.
I will now read from a memorandum provided to the Minister for Land Resource Management in relation to the application. It is an extraordinary document.
Leave granted.
The memorandum provides the minister with details of eight submissions, all which strongly oppose the licence applications from the CLP candidate for Lingiari. Although the government has declined to release the submissions - another example of their flippant interpretation of their promise to Territorians to be open and accountable - the summary of the attached memorandum to the Minister for Land Resource Management highlights substantial concerns and issues in relation to the licence of the water to the CLP candidate for Lingiari. As mentioned above, the memorandum of 14 December to the minister states:
Modelling was undertaken and it indicated clearly that there would be very substantial impacts on Elsey National Park and the Roper River as a direct consequence of the water extraction licence for 5800 ML per year awarded to the CLP candidate for Lingiari. A memorandum from the Water Resources Planner Darwin outlines the very substantial adverse ecological impacts of the volume of water granted to the MacFarlanes under the licence.
I seek leave to table the second memorandum.
Leave granted.
The science is there. Even in years of increased rainfall there is still an effect. Go on further to the Bitter Springs area:
Plain and simple, it is here.
Another example. I will move on to Rainbow Springs:
There is a pattern emerging here.
At Red Rock:
Going on further from Red Rock:
For anyone who has visited this area, you move from Bitter Springs down to Red Rock through to Ngukurr.
You act like this is a trivial matter. It is serious. We are talking about a township’s water supply.
This is ringing alarm bells for me, raising questions, and I am not a scientist.
You have it in the science, in the documents, which you have refused to acknowledge.
Again they state that, but the CLP ignores it.
It is more than reasonable to conclude, based on this document, that the licence should not have been granted to the CLP candidate for Lingiari and her husband.
In addition to addressing the environmental and ecological impacts of the increased allocation, the memo raises very serious concerns about the impact on the township of Ngukurr’s water supply.
Power and Water have expressed concerns that the increased allocation could increase the frequency and duration of salinity events affecting the public water. This is the water people drink, bathe in, and give to their children. At the very time Tina MacFarlane is traversing across Lingiari promising better services and communication with Indigenous Territorians, she has applied for and accepted a water licence that will increase the salinity of the water supply in an Aboriginal community in this area.
If she is fair dinkum, before polling day she will visit Ngukurr and advise the community that their pumps will need to be turned off whenever her water utilisation impacts on their salinity levels of the water supply. Who thinks Mrs MacFarlane will do that? I doubt it.
The community at Ngukurr also deserves to know what the member for Arnhem thinks about this issue. Like her CLP colleagues, will she put the interests of the CLP candidate for Lingiari ahead of ordinary Territorians who rely on the sustainable utilisation of the Tindall Limestone Aquifer? She does not care about the residents of Ngukurr. Maybe she should use her fuel card and visit the residents of Ngukurr to explain to them what is happening and what may happen to their water. She can prove me wrong. I call on her to come into the House and speak to this censure, and just once put her people, who she talks about so often, before her party.
There is further observation concerning the member for Katherine that should be drawn to the attention of honourable members. The member for Katherine is the Minister for Land Resource Management, the portfolio responsible for the Water Act. He is also the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries, a ministry that usually listens to the legitimate concerns raised by AFANT on behalf its members. Often, AFANT is quoted as a legitimate stakeholder which provides legitimate advice. What does AFANT think about the licence awarded to the CLP member for Lingiari? AFANT is hardly a lefty greenie organisation, as the Chief Minister likes to label any critical voice.
In its Tindall fact sheet, ‘Your rivers at risk Mataranka’ with respect to the volume of water allocated under the licence, AFANT:
Why has the minister suddenly stopped listening to AFANT? The question has to be asked because he and his Cabinet colleagues are determined to allocate a valuable public resource to a CLP mate. Although, she did not have to regard the rights of others who depend on the Tindall Limestone Aquifer. The CLP candidate is entitled to apply for a water extraction licence; no one is denying that. What she is not entitled to do is solicit or receive favourable treatment from CLP ministers for a large water extraction licence in a precious environmentally sensitive area of the Territory renowned for its ecological, cultural, and recreational values.
All of these considerations beg the question: why has the water extraction licence been awarded to the CLP candidate for Lingiari? These are some facts and considerations which may shed light on the question. Despite the denials of the Chief Minister and the Minister for Land Resource Management in this parliament, we know the licence application was considered at a ministerial level. We know that on 1 April this year, The Australian newspaper reported:
We know from CLP sources that the minister had promised the candidate for Lingiari that her water extraction licence would be approved. We know the MacFarlanes have been encouraged by the Treasurer to subdivide their property. The other day she was asked by the ABC what she was going to do. She answered very vaguely, ‘Maybe some beef, maybe wheat’. She did not even know. This is the evidence that proves she just wants the water for financial reasons; she views the water as a financial asset. She mentioned wheat; did she mean GM wheat? It is a whole other story. She does not know what she wants to do with it.
We know the government has refused to release 78 pages of documentation under FOI in relation to the licence, including 13 pages of correspondence between the CLP-elected members and the Water Controller. If you want us to believe you, release that now.
We know the basis for this decision is that the documents might create unnecessary debate. Here is your chance. What a cop out. What a cover up. They claim they had no involvement, but they wrote lots of letters which they are hiding.
It is not unnecessary debate, it is gagged debate. You do not want Territorians to know the truth, you want your mate to get rich and just cover it up.
The other excuse the CLP used to hide the documents they wrote was that they formed part of the deliberative process. On one hand they are saying they had no part in the decision, and then they say they cannot release the letters they wrote because they form part of the decision. It stinks of a cover-up.
In the run up to the Territory election last year, the CLP made commitments to Territorians to be an honest, open and accountable government. The CLP mantra, a solemn ‘you can trust us’ was constant in their refrain. A campaign flier entitled, Our Community to You states:
A message to Territorians on the bottom of the flier states:
Part of the five-point plan issued in conjunction with the flier proclaims, point five:
There is at least one deal, not covered by this contract, the deal to award the water extraction licence in controversial circumstances to the CLP candidate for Lingiari. The contract I just referred to is not worth the paper it is written on. The so-called contract is a fraud. The CLP have engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct. They have ignored the science and the environment, gifting the water allocation against the advice of experts, a community advisory group, the ruling of an independent panel and an adjudication of the Supreme Court.
They have given a huge amount of water to their mate. She has no plan for the water. She cannot answer that. These water rights add value to her property. What she has done is put the whole Tindall Limestone Aquifer at risk. We do not know. The science I spoke about points to water flow through some of the most beautiful Territory which are at risk because of a huge amount of water being taken.
The township of Ngukurr’s water supply is at risk. It already had its water turned off last year. How often will that happen? The member for Arnhem needs to explain to her local residents that this water extraction licence, issued against the advice of science, against the wishes of the community and so many stakeholders, will affect the water of the township within her electorate.
What will she do? Will we have to truck water in there because they have no water to drink or bathe their children in? That is not fair. The CLP needs to stop and to rescind this licence so the science can be investigated properly, not based on one phone call. It needs to show the evidence to Territorians and then hand out licences appropriately, not a licence for 10 years for a huge amount of water to their mate.
The CLP have stripped water rights away from Indigenous Territorians. They have handed millions of dollars of water to their own candidate, Tina MacFarlane. The CLP have made up the science and ignored recreational fishers and pastoralists who are not CLP members. They claimed they had no involvement in this decision, when the documents prove they have. They have been tabled. They are on the public record - documents that clearly do not add up, stating they were not involved. They have hidden documents between themselves and the Water Controller with the excuse that it might cause unnecessary debate.
Madam Speaker, the CLP have put the financial interests of the candidate for Lingiari ahead of the water supply of Ngukurr. The whole episode stinks and the CLP should be condemned.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Land Resource Management): Madam Speaker, as I said today in Question Time, the poor old member for Nightcliff has been led up the garden path by her colleagues in pursuing this matter and wasting the time of this parliament.
Let us go back in history, as it is important to set a context for where we are today. Prior to August 2012, the former government and their department, NRETAS, were responsible for setting water policy and determining water policy planning, water planning, issuing licences, setting up water management plans - the whole box and dice. They had responsibility for it. In doing that, the department, as it was then, under the policy of the former government, determined there is a pool of water available within a particular aquifer. That pool of water should be divided into two portions: one being the environmental portion that should be left in the ground to counter the effects on the environment and to ensure the environment is not overly adversely impacted by the extraction of water. The other portion of that water is referred to as the consumptive pool.
Under the former government’s policy, 80% of what was known to be the total pool was allocated to the environment, leaving 20% as the consumptive pool. I do not know if I need to explain to this House, or to those in opposition, what ‘consumptive’ means, but I will have a go. The consumptive pool is the amount you can use, set by a determination of policy under the former government. It was you who said 80% of water stays in the ground for the environment and 20% comes out to be included in a consumptive pool.
The first question is why is there such uproar about extracting water under a licence that is clearly contained within the 20% consumptive pool?
Ms Walker: Because you have allocated it to a Country Liberal Party mate. You do not get it.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: The member for Nhulunbuy will continually interject as she always does, but I will come back to all the points she raises.
Ms Walker: Oh, he is a bit sensitive. ‘Oh, do not pick on me.’ Look at the beads of sweat on his forehead.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Please get out of my right ear.
Why is there such a furore around the allocation of a licence that fits within the boundaries of the 20% of consumptive water? Under the previous modelling, some 19 500ML was available as the consumptive pool. The granting of a 5800 ML licence under that context means the consumptive pool is not fully allocated. It is also important to point out that this ground water extraction licence does not automatically allow someone to stick a straw into the aquifer and start sucking 5800 ML out.
There has to be a plan accompanying the licence around the development of an agricultural pursuit that is associated with that ground water extraction licence.
To achieve that type of development - and none of the members opposite have any experience on the land - it would take millions of dollars to develop the land so the water can be used. You are required to go through a process of sinking bores, and you have to find the water. You then have the bore licenced and it becomes a production bore. That costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. Then, if necessary, the land has to be cleared and the infrastructure has to be purchased to allow usage of the water on the land for the purpose it is intended.
The suggestion that this was a gift of millions of dollars’ worth of water to the candidate for Lingiari, Mrs MacFarlane, and her husband is completely false because there is a requirement for the MacFarlanes to do certain things to justify having that water.
This is a staged licence where, over the first few years, a much smaller amount is permitted to be drawn from the aquifer. It does not jump to 5800 ML immediately, and there are a number of conditions attached to the licence, not the least of which is the one I mentioned earlier about the plan for how the water is to be used.
Some of those conditions include what the new government considered to be an appropriate condition on water licences, being the amount of allocation for each year can be adjusted according to the recharge rate achieved in the previous Wet Season.
That is a responsible condition on a water licence which reflects the fact there is rainfall variability, therefore variability in the recharge of a particular aquifer. There is also a condition of use it or lose it. If the water is not utilised under the terms and conditions of the licence, the Water Controller is able to reduce the amount of water available under that licence.
Those are sensible conditions to have on a water licence and the MacFarlane’s know that. Since then - and I talk about the historical part of this, the 19 000 ML or thereabouts considered in the consumptive pool - the total aquifer has been reassessed through the best contemporary science available to the water scientists through our department. The 19 000 ML has now - I will refer to it as the consumptive pool: the amount that has been determined by scientists as capable of being taken from an aquifer and used without having any major adverse impact on the environment. That consumptive pool has grown through better modelling, a better understanding of the interaction between rainfall and the aquifer recharge, the relationship between the aquifer and the river and everything else up to 36 000 ML. The licence in the big scheme has diminished in size comparatively to the water available in the consumptive pool.
I listened intently, although I had to duck in and out a few times during the contribution by the member for Nightcliff, but what I heard was many ‘ifs’ ‘maybes’ and ‘coulds’. That terminology was used in a great deal of the correspondence the member for Nightcliff referred to. Any layman can say ‘if’ and ‘could’ and ‘maybe’ and ‘might’ and all those words to illustrate something that could, or if, or maybe, or might happen. Anyone can say that.
Mr McCarthy: Let us say, ‘Did you do it?’
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Another nonsensical interjection from the member for Barkly. If he is going to interject …
Mr McCarthy: To a member who will not answer the question.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: … he would - it is actually a debate, it is not a question - another irrelevant interjection from the member for Barkly. If he wants to interject, at least make it relevant to what I am talking about at the time.
In the context of a much larger consumptive pool, the amount that can be taken from the aquifer – 5800 ML is a smaller proportion than it was under the former modelling. Of course, I am not surprised this censure motion contains a bunch of emotive stuff, trying to gain political points. Let me say before I move on to some of that emotive stuff that there is no smoking gun here, member for Nightcliff.
Maybe this is an attempt on your part to save Kevin Rudd’s campaign in Lingiari. It is the only thing I can think of. Here we are two-and-a-bit weeks out from the federal election and you have probably realised that Warren Snowdon is in trouble because your polling is probably telling you the same thing as ours. This is a ham-fisted, lame attempt to try and diminish the candidate for Lingiari and boost the chances of the current member for Lingiari, Warren Snowdon; his chances in the upcoming election.
Nonetheless, let us have a look at some of the emotive stuff here that I am going to dismiss. ‘Stripping Indigenous Territorians of their water rights to hand them instead to their candidate.’
How on earth is allocating a portion of the consumptive pool stripping away the rights of Indigenous people? Indigenous people, and I presume you mean Indigenous landowners, because it is a badly worded motion. Stripping away those water rights means nothing. Those people, if they are landowners, can apply for water. Anybody who owns land or is an occupier can apply for a ground water extraction licence in the Mataranka, Katherine, Oolloo and Daly areas. You can apply for a ground water licence. No one is stripping any water rights from anybody.
This is a shallow attempt by the member for Nightcliff to politicise this issue and try to make it emotive. I can see the next thing coming will be letters on Natasha Fyles’ letterhead going out to all the people in Ngukurr saying, ‘Look at the horrible thing that is being done.’ You might have done it already. Have I given you a good idea? Maybe that is worth pursuing. Have a crack at it and see how you go. They are not going to listen to you and I will tell you why because the people …
Ms Walker: Their representation does not count, does it? No, do not worry about NAILSMA. You do not care about Indigenous people.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Nhulunbuy, please.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Thank goodness for that!
Ms Fyles: Release the documents. Make it clear.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Same for the member for Nightcliff.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: The people of Ngukurr know there is plenty of water there. Let us move to the next point, ‘Threatening the supply of water to the Ngukurr community’.
Another emotive part of the motion put before us today. It contains no substance. As I said earlier in Question Time today, the Mataranka draft water plan is still a draft plan for a very good reason. When this government came to power, it was found to be lacking under the stewardship of the former Labor government. Where it was lacking was in considering the future of the water supply for Ngukurr. That water allocation plan does not mention it. My brief to the Water Controller - and I am very pleased it was an issue he raised with me - was to consider Ngukurr and the larger implications of the greater Roper River catchment in formulating and forming the water allocation plan for the Mataranka area.
We are fixing up another Labor stuff-up, yet you have the audacity to stand in this House and accuse us of not considering the water supply for the Ngukurr community. You really should be briefed on this, member for Nightcliff. I note at this point that you have not asked for any briefings on any of the matters that are before us, either the issue of the water licence to the McFarlane’s or the water planning process for Mataranka or anywhere in the Northern Territory.
You have not sought a briefing. I have stood a number of times and offered briefings to members opposite so they could be fully informed on what this government is doing. I extend to you again, an offer of briefings. If you want to know something, organise a briefing and ask the questions you want answered.
You say we had no involvement in the decision, but we are refusing to release correspondence between the CLP and the Water Controller. There has been absolutely no involvement by myself as the minister in the issue of this water licence, other than through the Water Controller keeping me briefed on the progress of his deliberations, and what was happening within the department in determining whether this water licence should be granted.
To be honest with you, I do not know which pieces of correspondence that you are referring to that have not been released. Here is a copy of the documents that were issued under FOI to the ABC, which have miraculously made their way across to the ALP benches. I am not sure how that has happened, but that is a discussion for another time.
You are putting a slight on the hardworking professionals of the Department of Land Resource Management, particularly the Water Resources area. People from your side of the House have criticised and blame public servants. It has happened before, and through this process you are continuing to assert that the Water Controller and the public servants have not done their job. That is despicable.
Once again, you are showing your true colours. The Labor opposition have prize for doing this, and I do not know if we will ever be able to stop them. I am not going to just accept the fact that you used to use the public servants as a shield and blame them for the things you did not want to take responsibility for, and continue to do that today.
In your motion, member for Nightcliff, you assert that there was a decision made based on a phone call. I will read the following, ‘basing their decision to change the science on a phone call’. I presume you are referring to the decision by the department to consider 40 years as opposed to 100 years of data for rainfall. Firstly, the 100 years of rainfall data you are referring to, and was previously considered, was Katherine rainfall data that was extrapolated to consider the effects on the Mataranka area.
Since that time, some further information was made available to the department. I am going to read, and I have removed the header so that the particular public servant cannot be identified, because I do not have to blame public servants or hide behind them.
I am going to read from this email, and then I am going to table it.
That comes from the Bureau of Meteorology.
The World Meteorological Organisation described climate as, and I quote from the quote which was given to me:
I table a copy of that e-mail.
The next step of that, based on the discussions that were held between my department and the Bureau of Meteorology, which became a further point of discussion between other scientists within the water resources area and the Bureau of Meteorology, hence the phone call.
The phone call was made by my departmental officers to an officer within the Bureau of Meteorology to confirm the information that I just read out to you. This was a result of some collaborative work undertaken by my department, the Bureau of Meteorology and Charles Darwin University.
Your simplistic and scaremongering approach to this is based on a small amount of information that you find convenient to pluck out of a great wad of information.
You also talk about - I am not going to belabour this - ignoring science and modelling that exposes the risk of environmental and ecological damage to Elsey National Park and its water system.
As I said before, there were a number of ‘ifs’ and ‘coulds’ and ‘maybes’ in the correspondence you read out. There were no definitive statements that said ‘will’ or ‘going to’ or ‘beyond doubt will’ or anything like that. The suggestions you are making throughout this motion, the contribution to the motion as you put it, are thin at best.
The remainder of this motion I can sum up by saying is a political attempt to obscure the fact that Warren Snowdon is failing in his electorate, trying to blow something out of proportion that does not exist …
Ms Walker: Rubbish, he has a lot of support in the Gove region.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Is there?
Ms Walker: My word. People are filthy on the CLP.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I pick up on the interjection from the member for Nhulunbuy. You might be interested to know the Tindall Limestone Aquifer does not extend to the Gove region, member for Nhulunbuy.
Ms Walker: I am talking about Warren Snowdon’s vote, you goose.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: You idiot. Honestly, the member for Nhulunbuy …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I would ask the minister withdraw that unparliamentary comment in reference to myself.
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, when a member interjects it invites a comment. The comment made by the minister was to describe the Tindall Limestone Aquifer and its reaches. I do not believe it has ever been ruled out of order in any parliament that describing an aquifer is unparliamentary.
Ms WALKER: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, Standing Order 62: offensive or unbecoming words. The minister well knows that calling somebody an ‘idiot; or similar language is offensive and I ask him to withdraw.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Katherine, will you withdraw ‘idiot’?
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I withdraw ‘idiot’, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I will finish on something I have made public during an interview with the ABC a few weeks ago. I was patently aware there would be some political implications arising out of the application by Tina MacFarlane and her husband for this water licence. I am not so nave to think this would not have attracted a great deal of attention. I knew it was coming.
Ms Walker: You were really hoping it was not going to attract attention.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I pick up on the interjection from the member for Nhulunbuy. She says I was really hoping it would not. I accept these things were bound to happen and it does not bother me …
Ms Walker: It should.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can the member for Nhulunbuy stop interjecting. I refer her to Standing Order 51. Thank you.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Because I was patently aware of the attention this might attract and the political capital the Labor Party might try to extract from it, I was particularly careful not to have any involvement in the decision-making process. I will recount for the public record, the conversation I had with the Water Controller in the early stages of the consideration of this licence.
By way of background, you should also know the Water Controller is the Chief Executive of the Department of Land Resource Management. I said to him in a conversation, ‘There will be no political interference in this process. If the application stands on its merits it should be granted, if it does not stand up on its merits it should not’. You can accept that or not, but that is the extent of the involvement I had, which was to exclude myself from any involvement.
I am about to run out of time, and an extension is not allowed. This is a lame motion by the member for Nightcliff and …
Ms Walker: You are a lame minister.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: It is easy to cast aspersions from across there.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this censure motion as a member of the opposition representing the voice of the people and very important stakeholder groups across the Northern Territory, including Indigenous traditional owners who are saying that this matter is crook.
I will refer to the member for Port Darwin as one of my tutors in this House, because I have learnt a lot from him. When in opposition, the member for Port Darwin made it very clear that when the CLP is in government they are a can-do government and ministers make things happen. They do not hide behind public servants, they tell public servants what to do; they make things happen. We are hearing how CLP ministers get involved, get their hands dirty and make things happen. That is the essential question around this censure motion.
Being a well-referenced opposition that has researched and presents a clear alternative, we are bringing this censure motion to the House to ensure this matter is debated. We are seeking the truth.
The member for Katherine, the minister, has once again used this approach from the CLP that public servants are intimidated by Labor members. I will quickly make a contribution to that ridiculous comment. I was a public servant for 30 years; I now serve the public as a member of the Legislative Assembly. My colleagues on this side of the House, the Territory Labor opposition, all share in that experience, either as public servants or in government working with public sector officials. Do you know what? We still celebrate great relationships with the public service because we engendered respect.
For the minister and other ministers to continually dive for cover and hide behind this rhetoric is immature and ridiculous. They should rise to the occasion; they are now ministers of the Crown.
They have the same challenge of engendering the respect of the public service. Ridiculous comments from the member for Katherine, only seek to reduce any possible respect from the members of the public service who do that diligent work to make the Territory machine run. It really needs to be addressed by the ministers of the Crown. The member for Port Darwin might be able to share some of his intellect in raising the bar on this government’s approach and operation.
I am honoured to be able to speak on this because I am supporting the member for Nightcliff, a member of the Legislative Assembly, raising a young family, a mum and a passionate Territorian who is committed to the environment and the sustainable utilisation of Territory natural resources. That is what this is about; ensuring things are done properly.
There is widespread concern in the community. I do not know what you guys are doing, but we are debating this censure motion because there is widespread concern throughout the community about the granting of such a large water extraction licence to a CLP candidate, the candidate for Lingiari. Many Territorians have approached members on our side. Territorians have approached myself, as a bush member.
The beautiful Roper River and the southern part of that catchment and aquifer are part of the Barkly electorate, so I have a great deal of contact with Barkly constituents. They are concerned about how this process took place. They say to me it is crook and it looks like a deal for a CLP mate.
The minister said he has provided all the information, but unfortunately he has not.
Let us look at some of the unusual characteristics of the licence and its approval processes. The licence awarded is 5800 ML per year, more than the total volume allocated to all the other users of the Tindall Limestone Aquifer, Mataranka.
There is the first area of concern from Territorians; real concerns that need to be addressed. Can you imagine how those landowners feel? They have done the right thing. They accepted licences for much smaller volumes of 1000 ML allocated annually. They did the right thing, and conformed to the plan. Suddenly, a new applicant jumps out of the box with a 5800 ML allocation. The rationale for allocating licences in small steps is that licence volumes will take some years, if ever, to reach the sustainable yield of the aquifer; measured, sustainable, guarded.
The minister has treated these similar users with contempt, and has ignored his constituents. It is as simple as that. Not a good practice, minister, in government, in engendering respect and credibility. I will read from some ministerial notes. Eight written submissions were received in response to the advertised and distributed notice and will be taken into account by the Controller of Water Resources when making his decision on the licence application submitted by Mr and Mrs MacFarlane.
The submissions received consistently raise concerns with a granting of a licence for the full amount applied for. The Mataranka community, including current licence holders, have been engaged in the development of a water allocation plan for the Mataranka area for nearly five years; a very important resource for the future.
All licence holders have honoured a voluntary embargo on new licence applications throughout the planning process and have agreed to annual licence renewals until a plan is formally declared. The total water entitlements currently held by the 15 licence holders in the Mataranka area is 5000 ML a year which is less than the amount now applied for by Mr and Mrs MacFarlane.
There are real concerns. The government needs to take that into account, and address that.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I thank the member for reading that document. Is he able to table it for us, so if I need to respond I have the same document available to me?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Barkly, are you willing to table that document?
Mr McCARTHY: Mr Deputy Speaker, could I keep all my documents together until I have concluded my debate, as that is what I am working off. I need this document.
Mr ELFERINK: That is fine, can I ask that during the luncheon break I get copies of those documents so I can refer to them in our response.
Mr McCARTHY: They are documents that were obtained under Freedom of Information, member for Port Darwin, so they are available under FOI. They are my notes, I have created my debate and I would like to continue, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Okay, they are personal notes. Thank you.
Mr Elferink: You insist we put documents down on the table, but you are not prepared …
Mr McCARTHY: They are FOI documents John, you know that.
Ms Walker: You have access to them.
A member: Do not be lazy, get your own.
Members interjecting.
Mr Elferink: Okay, we understand.
Mr McCARTHY: I will continue with your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, the member for Barkly has the floor.
Mr McCARTHY: When the application for the water extraction licence was received, the sustainable yield for the Tindall Limestone Aquifer, Mataranka was estimated at 19 500 ML per year. New modelling was undertaken and the sustainable yield was increased to 36 000 ML per year. The minister says ‘new modelling, a whole heap of new water’. The Treasurer says, ‘the allocation we are talking about was only a little bit of water’. But the modelling is contentious and that is part of this debate. It has been the subject of ongoing debate within the Department of Land Resource Management.
This might explain why the government has refused to release under FOI, 65 pages of documentation relating to the revised estimated yield. I put it to the member for Port Darwin, maybe you want to table what has been refused in terms of the request to release the 78 pages of documents, including 13 pages of correspondence between the CLP elected member and the Water Controller, and 65 pages concerning how the new sustainable yield of 36 000 ML was calculated.
The minister and the member for Port Darwin, if you have nothing to hide, then you table those documents because that is part of the FOI documents that we never received. They were refused.
There is also a request about CLP being open and accountable to the public. There has been a lot of episodes where this is not the case, and this is a good example. Minister, we are interested in your economic and scientific modelling.
In Question Time on the 21 August, you talked about the pre-eminent public servants doing this modelling, the scientists who do this modelling. In the previous government, I had the privilege of meeting some of those people and learning from them. That information is very important for Territorians to understand when we are managing our natural resources.
Minister, release that work! There is a lot of correspondence that can add to this debate that can answer the question and show your creditability. Until we see that refused to be released documentation, the question from Territorians remains: was this a legitimate allocation or was there political interference?
We also represent important stakeholders. Why has the government refused to listen to NAILSMA? The minister said we are going to create mischief in the remote town of Ngukurr and we are going to send letters. What a load of rubbish! We work off what important stakeholders, that do business with government, put to the constituents.
I will quote from the NAILSMA, Indigenous Land and Sea Management media release, released on 12 December 2012. It was a joint media release from the Northern Land Council and the Indigenous Land and Sea Management stakeholder group. It says:
Once again, an important stakeholder group that is interested in this issue and has made valuable contribution to the debate has been ignored by the government and the minister. A background document for the draft water allocation plan for the aquifer states:
Important stakeholder groups have made comment in a magazine which I will quote from. In the Northern Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management News, Issue 7, May 2013, Joe Morrison, the CEO, makes some very important comments and provides some very important learning to government:
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Barkly, it is 12 pm. Do you want to find an appropriate time to break?
Mr McCARTHY: Certainly, Mr Deputy Speaker, we can break and I can resume my comments at a later time.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, thank you, after lunch.
Debate suspended.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, continuing to debate in support of this censure motion, I was talking about the important stakeholders representing the North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management. I quote from Joe Morrison once again from May 2013, Issue 7. It is pertinent that we take advice. He said:
That is very important to remember regarding our natural resources, our economic development policies and, in this case, the allocation of a large grant of water.
The equity of granting a large licence to one application, whilst other landholders have refrained from submitting licence applications in good faith while the water management plan is being worked through, is not appropriate and the minister needs to be aware of that.
The water allocation planning process that is well under way for the Tindall Limestone Aquifer, Mataranka and all the applications, including this one, should be assessed against criteria set out in the plan. Once again, I issue a challenge to the minister to complete this debate by releasing 78 pages of documents, including 13 pages of correspondence between the CLP elected member and the Water Controller, and 65 pages concerning how the new sustainable yield of 36 000 ML was calculated. That is the challenge, for the minister to table those documents making the documents complete and to hold this minister to account so Territorians will get the full story.
In relation to that area, part of the Barkly electorate, it is important to look at that background documentation. The draft water allocation plan for the aquifer states that 25% of the sustainable yield could be used in any strategic Indigenous reserve. But because it has allocated so much water to the CLP candidate, the government has declined to implement a policy on the strategic Indigenous reserve. The rights of Indigenous Territorians have been dismissed.
This is another casualty of a bad decision. The member for Port Darwin said that CLP minister is in the saddle, he is in control. He needs to take note of this debate and review this decision.
It is important for the minister to realise that in other jurisdictions around Australia there are many licences that are not used but are retained as a long-term investment as banked or sleeping licences, or they are put on the water market. Putting a clear point of reference and an alternative to the minister, staging will keep the volumes used in this fashion to a minimum. This will leave more water for development in the region for everyone.
I remember, as the minister for Lands and Planning, when the MacFarlane family came to meet me. They had a proposal for a residential subdivision on their land which they have held for many years at Mataranka. I was a can-do minister and we were a can-do government, and land release was at the top of our agenda. As we were rolling out the 2000 units you see in the CBD coming on line, the cranes on the skyline, and the 4000 lots of land around the greater Darwin area in the pipeline which the new government has inherited, I was also releasing land across the regions in Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs.
We were looking at Mataranka for land release and were in the process of resolving native title implications on 14 immediate blocks in the township of Mataranka. The MacFarlane family came with a proposal for a residential subdivision on their land. Like the member for Port Darwin, I shared the learnings with that family group on that day. I said, ‘What this needs is master planning and you need to look at the elements to subdivide land and develop residential subdivision: the headwork services which relate to the power, water, sewerage and ecology of the area, taking into account the water sources, the aquifer systems and the pristine environments.
It was a great meeting, and I gave them positive indications that I support residential subdivisions. I support the town of Mataranka and the regions. I come from the regions. I made no promises or deals because that was not the way the government worked.
I took their proposal back to colleagues, and I discussed it with them. The previous Labor government was about releasing land in the regions and appropriated budget allocations towards that. Now we have reached the stage where there is this application, and we present a clear alternative.
Minister, review the decision. Look at a staged implementation plan and you can lead, like the Leader of Government Business says, and make the right choice for all Territorians.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I have listened very carefully and I note the final comments of the member for Barkly were to encourage the minister to personally involve himself in the issue of this water licence matter. I also heard the member for Barkly say ministers should be hands on, and so they should. They should drive policy and they should regularly talk and visit their departments. But equally, they must always do it inside the law.
The censure motion is a hybrid of two different arguments and they are relying on one argument to suggest that another argument can be supported. The two arguments can be captured in the way the member for Nightcliff introduced this censure motion to the House. The member for Nightcliff used the word corruption in her question to excite the usual requirement for the matter to be withdrawn so she might then commence the censure motion, which is the usual approach. Clearly that is what has been intimated all the way through, and on the back of what the member for Nightcliff’s offerings were that this is an act of corruption.
The word corruption is conspicuous by its absence in the motion itself. That being the case, then let us separate out the two issues involved because I listened carefully to the member for Barkly and he was far less suggestive of corruption. He alluded to it on a number of occasions, but what he offered the debate is a description of what he considers to be improved processes, things that can be done better.
There is a polar difference between a matter of corruption and a matter of process or procedure. That is where this assault on the government falls down. Whilst the opposition members would have us believe there is corrupt activity involved, they have not offered a shred of direct evidence to support that allegation.
Where is the letter from the minister to the Controller of Water to suggest he should find in favour of Tina MacFarlane? I have not seen any evidence of that because it does not exist. Maybe an e-mail noting a telephone conversation to that effect, but no such e-mail exists and no such telephone conversation was ever had.
To make out the allegation of corruption, the opposition then has to go through the process of creating a circumstantial case and building a case around the allegation, because they have no direct evidence. There is a reason there is no direct evidence, and that is because nothing ever happened to make out the allegation the opposition is asserting.
Small wonder they cannot bring themselves in the censure motion to make the allegation, because they have no evidence of it. They rely on submissions made to the Controller of Water over the licence application. Some of which contain information - I heard the members for Barkly and Nightcliff quoting a number of these items of information - which was not reflective of the findings of the Controller of Water.
They were the opinions of the applicants in the objections to the licence. Any form of authorisation, be it a planning application, an extraction licence for water, an exploration licence or an extraction licence in mining, has an objections process built into it. Objections come in all shapes and sizes. Some of them are downright whacky; others are cogent, well-thought out arguments supported by evidence, structure and fact.
The censure has no differentiation between the opinion of an objector, the finding of the Controller of Water and acts of corruption by the minister because it does not suit the argument of the members opposite to make that differentiation. They elongate the argument to say something that happens at this end of the process reflects on a corrupt activity at this end, not realising that along the process there are hurdles you have to get over before you make out the case you are attempting to make. Unfortunately, that has not come close to being achieved in this censure motion.
I understand that members may not agree with the science or the conclusions the Controller of Water reached; that is fine. That is what this House and public debate is about. I can understand that we have these debates, and that the member for Nelson has an opinion there should be another committee process. He can share that, and possibly a committee process is the way to go. I will leave that to the minister to determine, as he may want to discuss that with his Cabinet colleagues. Maybe he wants to talk to you about that, but that is not a corrupt act; it is a matter of process. The Controller of Water position undertakes, essentially, what a committee does, but I note the member for Nelson believes there needs to be a further step, because the initial step is not enough. We can argue about how many steps there need to be, but not one word in that argument would suggest there is corrupt activity, which is consistently being asserted by the members opposite.
If you concentrate on this differentiation between what the allegation is purported to be and what it actually is, then you unavoidably come to the conclusion that you cannot make out any form of impropriety based on the loose evidence presented. There are 64 pages missing, 13 documents or the like.
During the luncheon break, I spoke to the minister’s office and enquired as to what those missing documents were. Essentially, they are drafts of the final report you are in possession of through the information search. So much so that I spoke to the Controller of Water to confirm that was the case. The reason those documents were withheld is because they contain inaccuracies and incomplete statements. There is no surprise in that; they are draft documents.
What is to be made out of all of this? No evidence of something metamorphoses in the minds of the members opposite into evidence of something. An absence of evidence is no evidence, and that is all you can draw from that, other than a speculative conspiracy theory. The other component of this assertion by the members opposite, and I pick up particularly on the member for Nightcliff’s observation in her opening lines when she started addressing this House being that this is in no way a reflection on a public servant. It cannot be but a reflection on a public servant because to make out the conspiracy being asserted by members opposite, there need to be three players. Firstly, the applicant - the beneficiary of this decision; secondly, the minister - I can understand that for political reasons, particularly in the heat of the federal election campaign, you would go after both the minister and the applicant. Unfortunately, there needs to be a third player and that is the Controller of Water.
The third player is a public servant, and typical of the approach taken by the Labor members opposite, to Hades with his reputation. We will sully and stomp on it. We will besmirch his reputation based on the flimsiest assertions we can construct from an FOI search conducted by a third party. That concerns me.
If there was real evidence, by all means bring it in here, but all you can offer is an absence of evidence as evidence of something. That is irreconcilable with any form of common sense, yet you are prepared to bring this man’s reputation into this House and sully it. He is not exonerated by some type of dismissive, ‘by the way, this is not about the Controller of Water, it is about the government’.
For the conspiracy to be made out, he must be an active participant. It concerns and horrifies me that you would sully the reputation of a man who has no capacity to defend himself in this House and assert he is part of a corrupt conspiracy to issue a water licence, then offer no evidence to support it, other than your flimsy assertions based on some circumstances which, when played out in any small jurisdiction, are a natural consequence of normal communications between people.
We are a jurisdiction of 250 000 people. There will always be people who are close to ministers of the Crown. We are politicians, we know our small electorates very well so, from time to time, there will be a crossover and links which can be made out, and that applies to everyone in this House. It applies to me, the minister, and every member opposite. Yet the moment such a link is made, the wife of an ex-member of this parliament is suddenly accused of criminal activity under parliamentary privilege. That is reprehensible. Supporting evidence – zero.
All types of assertions are made by people on the other side of this House about persons associated with the CLP. If you happen to be a public servant in that environment, forget that we should have some decorum about making allegations because we do not see that decorum. I have been complaining and stridently critical of this since the change of government.
I remain concerned there is no evidence to suggest the Controller of Water has been involved in anything untoward. In fact, when I was speaking to him earlier, he assured me the minister had acted appropriately through the whole process.
The minister has never denied knowing about this application. In his response to this House he said he knew about it. He knew it would be used as political fodder, but he did not involve himself in the way the member for Barkly has just said he should, and why? Because the member for Barkly believes it is inappropriate that the water licence be issued to a member of the CLP. Does it mean a member of a political party in the Northern Territory is not allowed to engage in any business or exercise that may play out to their advantage by virtue of the fact they have membership of a political party? Is that truly the position members opposite would take?
Or is it more the case that simply being a member of the CLP - other political parties are fine - deprives you of being allowed to advance yourself by virtue of the fact that it opens you up to an allegation of corruption. Is that really where we are going? I would not take any comfort living in a jurisdiction where membership of a political party is automatic condemnation and a reason to drag your reputation into the public domain and shoot it in the back of the head.
Let us be clear, not one shred of evidence has been offered in this House today to in any way make the links of corruption and impropriety being asserted by the members opposite. If members want to talk about the policy, how that policy was rolled out, and matters such as whether it is an appropriate amount of water to take out of the water table, that is fine. However, that is an issue for policy, not a matter of censure. That is a matter of normal debate in the normal processes of this House.
As far as I am concerned, the normal processes of this House should be followed in relation to these matters. Policy issues are not matters for censure. The carelessness on which this lack of separation has occurred is manifest in this document. I will give you an example. It is one of the points in relation to suspending the standing orders for a censure motion:
I would be surprised, nay astonished, if the Country Liberal Party and the Water Controller had any correspondence between them for any reason at any time. As far as I know, the CLP is a political organisation which is headquartered in McMillans Road, Jingili, and deals with trying to get its political party elected, and the Water Controller issues water licences throughout the Northern Territory. I am not sure that too many water licences have recently been issued in the Jingili area.
Of course, this is part of the amorphous attempt to make manifest a policy issue and dispute, a matter of corruption. It is fuzzy thinking, inaccurate logic, and irreconcilable with common sense. It is for that reason that this censure motion is ill considered, ill thought out, and poorly structured. I urge members that when they bring a censure motion into this House they make a clear distinction as to what they are attempting to censure the government for. That distinction has not been made out or in any way made clear to this House, and only attempts from this side to make it clear demonstrate what is occurring in this House today.
This censure motion is aimed at politics, a federal election, at running down people’s good names with a view for a political outcome, and is consequently unsupportable as a censure motion. By all means, let us have the debate about how much water should come out of that aquifer and about the systems we should have for the issue of licences. Let us have all the debates we need to about the supply of water in Ngukurr. However, do not suggest that people are corrupt, particularly people who cannot defend themselves in this House, and then not offer a shred of evidence in support of the assertion.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to what the member for Port Darwin said, and I am not accusing any member of the public service of corruption. However, the process and where we have got to with water allocation has been influenced by government policy. That is slightly different than what you are putting forward.
The question is, why did the government change the rules and give 5800 ML to Stylo Station? There is a range of issues that needs to be discussed before there is an answer to that question.
Stylo Station applied for a water licence for approximately 5000 ML in 2005, but resubmitted a new application for four separate licences for approximately 19 000 ML. This was refused by the Controller of Water and consequently went to the appeals panel which concurred with the decision to refuse. A 500 ML licence was issued to allow development to commence. The issue was then taken to the Supreme Court, which resulted in all claims being dismissed. The original application was resubmitted and finally granted in January 2013.
In June 2008, the Mataranka Water Advisory Committee was established. One of its terms of reference was to give recommendations for granting licences to take groundwater for the Mataranka area and the conditions contained in such licences. You can find that information on the webpage. In November 2008, Stylo applied for a 5780 ML licence, it was rejected. The owners went to the Senate Committee in 2009 to complain about their treatment by the Controller of Water, Mr Ian Lancaster, and to argue the case for a water licence. The argument included that when working out how much water is available, the 40 year rainfall figures should be used, not the 100 year figures.
Mrs MacFarlane told the Senate Committee that the Water Controller, Ian Lancaster, does lie. That is a quote from the Senate Committee transcript. Mr Ian Lancaster was replaced by Ms Diana Leeder as Controller of Water Resources around August 2010. As I said before, like a number of other growers, the MacFarlanes were issued a 500 ML licence.
In 2010, the member for Fong Lim was approached by the owners of Stylo Station with concerns about changes to the Water Act which related to wastewater discharge. When the facts about the bill were put before him, he wanted to put forward an amendment. I always felt he was trying to impress the MacFarlanes. He did not understand the bill being put through parliament that day; which was to do with wastewater, not water extraction from bores.
That same day, he introduced a matter of public importance which dealt with water for agricultural industries. He mentioned that the MacFarlanes had been sitting in the gallery that day, and he had obviously taken up their cause. He then said the MacFarlanes had applied for a licence in 2005 and he goes on to say, and I am quoting from Hansard:
Interestingly, he went on to say:
That is the reverse of what we have heard today. He went on to say:
Do I smell a rat? I sure do. The draft water allocation plan for the Tindall Limestone Aquifer was put out for discussion in November 2011. A background document was included with that draft plan. A review panel was set up by the minister to look at the Water Controller’s decision to refuse the MacFarlanes’ application for a water licence.
They advised the minister to uphold that refusal. I am unsure if I have it handy, but if people would like to find out who was on that panel, they only have to go to the Supreme Court documents. They will see that the people on that review panel were people you would expect to have quite a bit of knowledge and understanding of the issues.
The Supreme Court, as we know, ruled against the MacFarlanes on 6 December 2012. Now we have a new government elected. The first thing that happened was both Water Controllers were sacked. Mr Ian Lancaster and Ms Diana Leeder were summarily sacked by the new government.
The Mataranka Water Advisory Committee has not held a meeting since the government was elected. We have not had a public decision as to why not. It just has not met, and you have to remember that part of its terms of reference were to give recommendations to the minister on water allocation.
There still has not been a decision on the draft management plan, even though a decision has been made on the Stylo Station water licence.
The Water Controller decided to give the MacFarlanes a 5800 ML licence per year after they put in a new application. The Water Controller scrapped the Indigenous water allocation. There appears to be no consultation with traditional owners and not a whimper from bush members. I do not know whether it had anything to do with the last Northern Territory election, but I give the member for Daly a pat on the back. He stood up for the traditional owners of that area, questioning why the government had gotten rid of that water allocation. He understood the importance of giving the local people some opportunities for regional development.
The Water Controller claimed new work had been done. His water policy manager had linked aquifer and river models and reported that the Bureau of Meteorology advised them to use the past 40 years of data to calibrate the model, as opposed to the 100 years of data used in the original ground water only model.
This has since been denied by the bureau and apparently the advice pertained to climate change modelling, not water resource modelling. None of which has been made available to the public, although the minister said he would look into whether it could be. This unreleased work has allowed the Water Controller to make a decision in favour of the MacFarlane’s water licence and the argument for an increased consumptive pool.
I refer to a letter, I believe it is a draft, which I got from the Northern Territory Farmers Association, when this matter was raised.
They said:
I totally agree with that.
The water planner’s advice was ignored and it is interesting that in the document tabled today, which is dated of 9 February - I believe that is after or about the time the decision was made …
Mr Westra van Holthe: Before the decision was made.
Mr WOOD: Before the decision was made, but when the new modelling had been, I presume, looked at. Marty Myles, who is the water resource planner, provided a recommendation. The recommendation was to (1) decline the application, or (2) if the government was to grant a conditional licence:
That was from the water planner to the department, with the Northern Territory Farmers Association saying something similar. That water planner’s advice was ignored and we know the decision that was made. The government also ignored the role of the Water Advisory Committee. Why? If you had included the community in the decision-making process, I do not think you would be discussing this today.
The member for Port Darwin said, ‘What proof?’ This is more complicated than one person doing one thing and therefore saying that was the wrong thing. This is a combination of government decisions that bring us to where we are today.
Mr Elferink: But this is an allegation of corruption.
Mr WOOD: It is not an allegation of corruption. It is an allegation that you can set the thing up in such a way that your policy of, ‘We are open for business. We want agricultural development.’ - you can set the framework up which is not a corrupt framework but you can influence the decisions. That does not mean the decision is corrupt, but it means you have set parameters which are like the …
Mr Elferink: The allegation before the parliament now is that of corruption.
Mr WOOD: No, it is not. I did not see the word corrupt in the allegation. Anyway …
Mr Elferink: That is what we are being asked to ...
Mr WOOD: No, I do not believe that at all. It says …
Mr Elferink: Why is it a censure motion?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: Because I believe there has been influence from the government that has influenced the decision.
Mr Elferink: Well, it is either a policy …
Mr WOOD: Wait until I finish and you can …
Madam SPEAKER: Order, Member for Port Darwin!
Mr WOOD: We have killed off the Water Advisory Committee, at least for the time being, and made a decision, while it has not been operating through the Water Controller. That is fine if the act says that, but why did you get rid of the Water Advisory Committee?
There was no request from the Water Review Panel to give their opinion. The draft plan was not completed. The reason you had a draft plan was to finish it, and then allocate the water.
The recommendation in this background paper was not put together by a fly-by-nighter. It was put together by a gentleman called Brendon Dymock, a water resource engineer brought here to put in these conditions for licensing. I heard the minister today say, ‘That is only part of the draft plan, so huh!’ It cannot be dismissed that way.
People with qualifications in water planning put this together - page 21 of the background document, which clearly sets out, in plain English, that the Water Controller should consider granting entitlements for new licences or increases in licences of up to 1000 ML each time. Return applicants would have to demonstrate during the licence application process to the controller’s satisfaction the full use of any previous water licence volume has occurred before any additional water licence entitlement is granted. Here is the document from a water resource engineer. Here is the Northern Territory Farmer’s Association saying the same thing. Here is the government’s water planner saying exactly the same thing.
Why has that not been taken up? Was there political influence? That does not mean the Water Controller is corrupt. It means the government, through its policies, can influence what its CEOs do.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 68: anticipation of debate. The matter under discussion is whether or not the government has acted corruptly. The matter which the member for Nelson is talking about appears as notice number 5 on the General Business agenda, and therefore falls under the structures of Standing Order 68. I seek your guidance in this area, Madam Speaker.
Mr Wood: Why did we start this debate if that was true?
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Nelson is speaking to the censure motion. Standing orders have been suspended to allow the censure motion to occur. I ask that the member for Nelson to continues his remarks. The member for Port Darwin had his opportunity to contribute to this debate. It is now the member for Nelson’s turn, and the member for Port Darwin is trying to wind down the clock on the member for Nelson who is making a contribution I want to hear.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I am not going to die at the stake over this, but it makes clear the two issues we are talking about. This debate is about corruption, now were talking about government policy and that is why this is such a foolish motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, there is no point of order. Continue member for Nelson.
Mr ELFERINK: You should have listened to the other people.
Mr WOOD: I have not seen the word ‘corruption’ in this statement. I have a statement in front of me, I have looked at it carefully, and I did not see that.
The member for Fong Lim is part of the reason we are where we are. He has been making statements about agricultural development in the Northern Territory. We are open for business. He has worked with the MacFarlanes, and I have no problem with that, we all lobby for people.
However, that is where the influence on the Water Controller has come from because the government has decided this is their program, they know what the sensible approach is and they do not want that. They want, ‘We are going ahead full steam with agricultural development’. Anyone who says, ‘Careful, just give out 1000 ML’, is some sort of loony greenie or they do not believe in agriculture. I believe in agriculture. The real crux of this debate is the government is doing something that is bad for the Northern Territory. It is unfair because we have processes which would have had allowed this debate, if those processes had been run properly with a committee …
Mr Elferink: It is already on the Notice Paper.
Mr WOOD: Yes, but you know what will happen on Wednesday? I know what happens. You will fill it ...
Mr Elferink: No.
Mr WOOD: Yes, you will. That is what happened in my debate last night. What does the minister think happened to the debate last night? I came along to debate something about planning and was left with crumbs because I have never seen so many people in this House on a government side stand up in a GBD and debate something relevantly minor.
Mr Elferink: You missed the jump.
Mr WOOD: No, I was not going to waste my time with the half-an-hour you would have given me …
Mr Elferink: I am sorry that parliament wastes your time.
Mr WOOD: You got it straight. At the present time, the problem is the community involvement and transparency went out the door. I rang members at Mataranka when this decision was made; I know the O’Briens thought it stunk. The Younghusbands are the people who grow vegetables. How come they did not get the licence first? They had proof they could do the job. The MacFarlanes had 500 ML of water and had not grown anything ...
Mr Westra van Holthe: It might surprise you they applied for the water and got it.
Mr WOOD: Yes after, not first.
Mr Westra van Holthe: Who cares whether you are first or second?
Mr WOOD: Because your own guidance said if people have used their water give them 1000 ML of water; if people have not used that first allocation of water, it is in the guidelines that you should not be giving them any more water until they have. That is the guideline in the book. You ignored that. We have someone who comes in here using 1950s philosophy, shoots down anyone who is a scientist or a community member, probably tells them they are all communists and greenies, because this is the way he wants development ...
Ms Lee: Water licences.
Mr WOOD: I am talking about water licences. Why did you not go crook about losing the Indigenous section of the licence? Regardless of whether you support the granting of this water licence to the MacFarlanes or not, someone in the CLP must have had rocks in their head giving this application out at this time before an election.
I am not against the MacFarlanes getting water, but the government influenced this decision through its policies, and that is where I have problems because that policy is bad policy.
If the government does not want more criticism, then reinstate the Water Advisory Committee and finalise the draft management plan, then make a decision on the committee’s recommendation. The minister can say we have new evidence on which we made a decision, but how convenient to scrap the committee. Ignore the water planner’s advice and sack two previous Water Controllers, then say, ‘We have new evidence’. The Water Controller might have made an independent decision about the consumptive pool, and he may be correct, but that does not mean he should have given out a 5800 ML licence. That decision was influenced by the government which wanted to stamp their motto ‘We are open for business’.
The reality is the sustainable use of community resources should be done on the basis of some clear guidelines. Those guidelines existed and if we had used them we would not be arguing this afternoon.
The community should have been involved in this process, but was deliberately left out. I support this motion because I support sustainable agriculture and horticulture, meaning the sustainable use of water, the fair and equitable allocation of water to existing growers and new growers, and that we use our water wisely so the whole community can get the maximum benefit from it use.
This water allocation is very wrong, and if the government says it is all about being open for business, there is a fair chance over time we will be out of business. We do not need people like the member for Fong Lim pushing development. The only thing he knows about is horse manure.
Minister, this issue is a fundamental issue of where this government is going. Do we use science or just use some irrational policy that will sound good? That is the problem the government has; it wants to look good, and in the process it has thrown out the science. For that reason, I believe I will support this.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 8 Noes 15
Ms Fyles Ms Anderson
Mr Gunner Mr Chandler
Mr McCarthy Mr Conlan
Ms Manison Mr Elferink
Mr Vatskalis Ms Finocchiaro
Mr Vowles Mr Giles
Ms Walker Mr Higgins
Mr Wood Mr Kurrupuwu
Mrs Lambley
Ms Lee
Mr Mills
Mrs Price
Mr Styles
Mr Tollner
Mr Westra van Holthe
Motion negatived.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that, pursuant to Standing Order 89, the routine of business be re-ordered so ministerial statements be called on at the conclusion of Government Business Notices and before the consideration of Government Business Orders of the Day.
Motion agreed to.
Bill presented and read a first time. Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to provide for the Northern Territory parliament to play its part in the various processes necessary for the ratification by the Commonwealth government of the optional protocol to the convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
The convention against torture provides for governments to take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
The convention was ratified by the Commonwealth of Australia in 1989. Subsequently, in 2002 the United Nations adopted the optional protocol to the convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, which came into force in 2006. The protocol, known as OPCAT, establishes a monitoring system for places where people are deprived of their liberty.
The protocol seeks to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. It operates independently of national governments.
On 8 June 2011, the Commonwealth government accepted six recommendations from the United Nations Human Rights Council’s universal periodic review of Australia’s human rights performance. These recommendations urged the Commonwealth to ratify OPCAT.
On 21 June 2012, the Commonwealth Parliament’s Joint Standing Committee on Treaties tabled its report on the adoption of OPCAT. It recommended that the Commonwealth take binding treaty action. The Treaties committee also recommended that the Commonwealth government work with all states and territories to establish an effective monitoring framework, as required under the protocol. The Commonwealth government has been doing this through the Standing Council on Law and Justice.
Under OPCAT, Australia is required to facilitate and support any visits from the United Nations subcommittee for the prevention of torture. This obligation becomes effective immediately once the protocol is ratified. The purpose of this bill is to provide a framework in the Northern Territory to support any future visits of the United Nations subcommittee following Australia’s ratification of OPCAT. Under OPCAT, the United Nations subcommittee has a broad mandate power for it to visit ‘any place under its jurisdiction and control where persons are or may be deprived of their liberty’.
The bill provides for the United Nations subcommittee to access places of detention, access information and interview detainees and other people. For the purposes of these visits, the term ‘place of detention’ is defined as any place under the Northern Territory government’s jurisdiction and control in which people are or may be involuntarily deprived of their liberty. The bill provides a very broad definition. However, it also lists the common places of detention, such as a correctional or detention centre, hospital, police station or court cell complex or a vehicle used to transport detainees.
This is a list that has been agreed upon as part of a drafting and policy development process that has involved all states and territories. This list does not affect the generality of the broad definition. This means that, for the Northern Territory, other places of detention are also covered.
These include mandatory alcohol detention facilities, court detention area, psychiatric units and all facilities involving the detention of youths. I must emphasise that the NT bill only affects institutions under the control of the Northern Territory government. Any Commonwealth facilities would be regulated by Commonwealth legislation or treaty obligations.
The key obligation under the protocol is that the NT government is obliged to ensure unrestricted access of the United Nations subcommittee to the Northern Territory government places of detention within the Northern Territory. The government will also be obliged to provide relevant information to the United Nations subcommittee. Such information includes conditions of detention. We will also be obliged to provide the opportunity to conduct private interviews with detainees and the other relevant people like medical personnel.
Subject to these kinds of issues, the United Nations subcommittee is bound to respect the laws and regulations of the states or territories it visits. I understand that the United Nations subcommittee has a systemic focus and adopts a cooperative approach to ensure that the requirements of OPCAT are met, while maintaining security, safety, good order and personal privacy in places of detention. It refrains from any action or activity which is incompatible with the impartial and international nature of its duties and must be guided by the principles of confidentiality, impartiality, non-selectivity, universality, and objectivity.
The Commonwealth will be permitted to object to the United Nations subcommittee visiting a place of detention if urgent and compelling grounds of national defence, public safety, natural disaster or serious disorder warrant the temporary delay of the visit.
The scope of information that must be provided to the United Nations subcommittee is limited to, quote:
In addition, under clause 11, the United Nations subcommittee is not entitled to access records held by a health practitioner, a lawyer or any other professional person who is under an obligation not to disclose information held in a record.
This exclusion applies to information about a person whether they are currently or have been a detainee.
Under its guidelines in relation to visits, the United Nations subcommittee has strict confidentiality requirements and is not permitted to publish personal data without the express consent of the person concerned.
The United Nations subcommittee may ask to interview detainees and other relevant people. Under the bill, the Northern Territory government will be obliged to provide reasonable assistance to the subcommittee to conduct an interview with a detainee or anyone else without witnesses. This does not mean that a person being interviewed cannot be accompanied by an interpreter or support person of their choice. The requirement to facilitate interviews without witnesses is to ensure that interviewees have an opportunity to provide information to the United Nations subcommittee without fear of reprisal or any undue pressure from a representative of the detaining authority being present.
The bill also makes it an offence to take reprisal action against a person who has given information. These provisions are necessary to allow the United Nations subcommittee to perform its mandate without detainees, their families and staff in detention centres being fearful of the consequences of speaking to the subcommittee.
Within the period of three years following ratification, a national preventative mechanism will need to be established. The national preventative mechanism does not need to be a single mechanism for the whole country. The current intention is that each of the Australian jurisdictions establishes its own preventative mechanism. During these three years, the government will be working towards a coordinated approach to the national preventative mechanism in the Territory.
The date for Australia’s ratification of OPCAT is yet to be confirmed. This act will be commenced after this occurs.
In June 2013 a draft of the NT bill along with an explanatory paper, was placed on the website of the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice. Copies of these documents were also provided to targeted stakeholders. I am happy to report that no substantial issues were raised as a consequence of this consultation.
I comment the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Land Resource Management): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to present the Pastoral Land Amendment Bill to honourable members. The pastoral sector is a key component of government’s economic strategy to provide opportunities for economic growth and development. This government has made a commitment to the pastoral industry to support income diversification opportunities on pastoral land.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the non-pastoral use provisions of the Pastoral Land Act. The amendments will provide pastoralists with a contemporary permit scheme that will enable them to diversify income streams on land held under pastoral lease tenure. Current provisions are restrictive and do not provide the long-term security of permit required to encourage investment or development of long-term projects on land held under pastoral lease tenure.
The pastoral industry, particularly those producers reliant on the live export trade are facing tough financial challenges. Income has been significantly reduced and in some instances is non-existent. Producers are actively seeking opportunities to diversify their business options, to supplement their core source of income - their pastoral enterprise.
The amendments will provide for pastoral land to be used for non-pastoral purposes subject to the terms and conditions of a valid permit issued by the Pastoral Land Board. The non-pastoral use provisions will provide a secondary source of income for lessees. The dominant use and primary source of income on a pastoral lease will remain for pastoral purposes as defined under the Pastoral Land Act.
The Native Title Act also requires that the majority of pastoral leases must be used for pastoral purposes. Non-pastoral use permits will not be issued for projects that would result in the total destock of a pastoral lease.
The former government instigated a review of the Pastoral Land Act in 2004, including a consultation program. The consultation draft of the amendment bill was released in early 2010. Although the amendments as proposed were rejected outright by industry, there was strong industry support for amending section 7, non-pastoral use provisions of the Pastoral Land Act.
Industry has long advocated for an amendment of the non-pastoral use provisions in a manner that provides a platform for diversification of use on land held under pastoral lease tenure. Industry is seeking the opportunity to diversify use in a manner that preserves the integrity of the pastoral estate, while allowing for non-dominant alternative forms of land use.
The amendments will deliver a legislative mechanism that provides the Pastoral Land Board, as the consent authority for non-pastoral use applications, the necessary powers to issue a non-pastoral use permit for a period of up to 30 years. Such a permit will be registered to the lease and not issued to the lessee. This will allow direct transfer of permits when ownership of properties are transferred.
I now turn to the amendments in particular to the new sections in Part 7 of the act.
The amendments will allow the Pastoral Land Board to approve non-pastoral use permits for a period of up to 30 years or in the case of a Term Pastoral Lease until the expiry date of the lease. A Term Pastoral Lease cannot extend beyond the 25 years. Currently, the maximum period the board can issue a non-pastoral use permit is five years and is required to renew the permit annually for review and determination by the Pastoral Land Board. The new arrangements will reduce this red tape and streamline processes.
The amendments before the Legislative Assembly allowing the Pastoral Land Board to approve non-pastoral use permits for up to 30 years will provide the surety of permit required by industry, investors, and financiers to undertake longer-term investments and income diversification. This lack of surety of tenure has made it difficult to attract investors or financiers.
The proposed amendments will also see non-pastoral use permits registered against the lease. This will provide for the permit to be transferred with the lease at the time of sale or change of ownership. Current provisions only allow the Pastoral Land Board to issue a permit to the pastoral lessee, and specifically states that the permit is personal to the lessee, as such is not transferrable with the lease. Currently, the prospective purchaser of a property where the current lessee has a non-pastoral lease permit, is required to apply to the Pastoral Land Board for a non-pastoral use permit to continue such an activity, once the sale of the property has occurred.
This is unnecessary administrative red tape for continuation of an approved non-pastoral enterprise. Not only does the amendment reduce administrative burdens, but provides certainty through permit to prospective purchasers of pastoral leases who want to continue existing businesses on the land.
The amendment also provides for the Pastoral Land Board to have the authority to extend a permit for an additional period on application by the permit holder conditional on the application being lodged two years before the expiry date of the permit. The provision requires the board to consider the conduct of the applicant, including compliance with conditions of the permit and any likely impacts on the environment. The Pastoral Land Board will have the necessary powers to suspend, revoke or vary a permit as it considers appropriate or at the request of a permit holder. The Pastoral Land Board will be responsible for preparing an application form and guidelines for this amended non-pastoral use provision.
As the responsible minister, I will have the necessary powers to set application lodgement fees and annual charges. Fees and charges will be set at a level that is cost neutral to government and sufficient to ensure that industry stakeholders operating on non-pastoral land are not disadvantaged, but at a rate that is conducive to investment.
Before issuing a non-pastoral use permit, the Pastoral Land Board will need to have satisfied itself that the provisions of the Commonwealth Native Title Act have been complied with. It is acknowledged that failure to comply fully with the provisions of the Native Title Act will invalidate the permit. It is also acknowledged that compensation will be payable by the Territory for any impact the non-pastoral use permit has on native title rights and interests. The amended act clearly states that there are procedures under the Native Title Act that must be complied with. The board is also required to take into account government policy and potential impact on the environment when making a determination.
The pastoral industry is of fundamental importance to the Northern Territory regional economic growth, employment opportunities and export income. The amendments will allow the pastoral landholders of the Northern Territory to boost the economy by making viable a host of non-pastoral industries such as tourism, forestry, agriculture, and horticulture.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Mr CHANDLER (Housing): Mr Deputy Speaker, over the last four years under Labor, residential construction in the Northern Territory was crawling along at around 1250 dwellings per year. This was at a time when, according to official Treasury advice, we needed to be constructing around 1700 per year.
We were going backwards year after year, right at a time when we needed to be gearing up for the inevitable growth in housing demand that would come with a major project like INPEX. We are dealing today with Labor’s legacy of failing to plan for growth. Housing affordability and the cost of living in the Northern Territory are directly attributable to Labor’s failures in this area.
When they did act, launching a dodgy home buying scheme just prior to the last Territory election, it was just plain bad policy. It was like throwing cold water on a fat fire. Their scheme seemed almost designed to inflate house prices. It was the wrong scheme at the wrong time. It was too little action that came far too late.
The Northern Territory has a strengthening economy and is currently enjoying the many benefits of economic growth. This does not just mean more jobs but higher paying jobs. It means increased opportunities for local businesses and it means new business coming to the Northern Territory. These are all good things; they are desirable and they are the envy of those living interstate.
A growing economy, however, is not without its challenges, and chief amongst these is managing the high rising cost of living that is an inevitable result of increasing demand. As demand for labour increases, the cost of wages will follow. As wages increase, the cost of goods and services will follow, and as new people move to the Territory and demand for housing increases, the cost of rents will rise.
This is nothing more than the most fundamental basics of economic principles. It is supply and demand. These are market forces at work. Of course, the fact there is a sound explanation for these things does not provide any comfort to those feeling their sometimes painful effects.
A family battling to meet the seemingly ever-increasing cost of rent has little care for fundamental economic principles. For the mum and dad doing the weekly grocery shop there is no point explaining to them the extra hit to the hip pocket they feel at the checkout is simply the side effect of a market force.
No, ordinary Territorians just want some relief. They just want to know that somebody is working to fix it. They want to know that whoever is in charge has their best interests at heart and that somebody understands their struggles.
Governments are the ones who should be caring about economic principles and market forces, because it is governments who have a role and responsibility to intervene, where appropriate, to ease the pain on households and to plan towards managed growth. This is precisely where the previous Labor government failed the Northern Territory. It failed to plan for growth. The previous Treasurer and current Opposition Leader failed, in her core responsibility, to effectively manage the economy. The previous Planning minister and current Deputy Opposition Leader failed to release enough land to keep pace with a growing market.
It is as a direct result of the previous government’s failures that Territorians are currently feeling the pain of rising cost of living pressures.
Let me be clear about this, we are a conservative government. We understand the importance of a free market and the value of minimising the role of government in that market. This principle is integral to our identity. We also understand that a government’s core responsibility is to its people, and when our people are hurting it is beholden upon us to act.
This weighs heavily upon us as government and as the Minister for Housing and the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment, I have a significant personal responsibility to ensure reforms around the levers that impact on the cost of housing and, ultimately, the cost of living, are delivered.
We have been in government for over a year now, and we have delivered a number of innovative reforms designed to improve how we plan out of towns and cities into the future, streamline the application and approval processes to fast track development, and deliver housing relief in a targeted and responsible way.
Let me first address the important area of planning, because good planning must underpin growth.
I have already reflected that with better planning, the previous Labor government could have softened the impact of the current high prices for housing. This was not due to a lack of effort on behalf of our public servants. Something we discovered when coming into government was the volume of work that had been completed in the lands and planning department that was sitting around collecting dust.
Work like the Tennant Creek Land Use Framework Plan, which was fully prepared and ready to go but never received the endorsement of the then Planning minister, the member for Barkly. The member for Barkly was too lazy to get his own town plan formalised. It beggars belief.
No, it was not due to the lack of the work in the department but rather a lack of drive from the government: a lack of political will from those opposite. They were happy to sit on their hands because the gas boom was on its way. This attitude was lazy at best and, in my view, a clear abdication of their responsibility.
It took the Country Liberals government to establish the Planning Commission as an independent authority to develop strategic plans and planning policies to cater for growth. It has been working overtime since its doors opened.
The priorities of the Planning Commission are:
to bring renewed focus and strategic planning for the Territory that enables sustainable growth of our cities and towns as great places to live, and ensures the planning reflects the expectations of the community
Projects like Weddell - I was shocked to discover how little work had gone into the planning for Weddell, considering how much money was spent on promoting it as an idea. We had the Weddell design competition, conference, design forum, and task force. In reality, all this added up to little more than soft promotion. No real planning work went into this; no concrete work had been done. It was a cruel hoax that would become plain and obvious to all had Labor won the last Territory election. This was their one shot in the locker to address housing affordability and land supply. It was a fantasy project that would never have come close to reality any time during this period of critical growth for the Northern Territory.
This government has realistic plans for addressing land shortage with real time lines and strategies for turning off lots that are affordable and maximise use of existing infrastructure.
A common theme in catering for future growth is land availability within the metropolitan areas, particularly Darwin, and the ability to achieve infill development and housing affordability.
The Northern Territory government is reviewing Territory land holdings and identifying potential Brownfield sites that can accommodate mixed use, both residential and commercial development near transport routes and activity centres.
Another key initiative is the streamlining of the planning approval process through a number of changes to the Northern Territory Planning Scheme, including making low-risk, low-impact uses permitted as a right, and reducing approval times for major projects by allowing a single process for rezoning and redeveloping land. This may include multiple dwellings in zones that allow that development.
This government has restructured the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment to implement an improved parallel process for land rezoning and development assessment. Industry will be able to have land rezoned and developed in shorter time frames, which will mean developers wanting to release land for Territory homes will be able to get approved lots onto the market faster than ever before.
We are undertaking an audit of government owned land across Darwin and surrounding areas, in Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs, which has identified sufficient land so far for, potentially, in excess of 3000 dwellings.
In Palmerston we have identified 22 sites with potential for 500 dwellings; Darwin 23 sites for a possible 1800 homes; Katherine 10 sites for 640 dwellings; Tennant Creek 8 sites for 13 dwellings, and in Alice Springs 9 sites for 115 dwellings. This is exciting work and we are pushing towards getting more than 20 of these sites turned off before the end of the year.
In the Top End, Berrimah Farm has been identified as being ready for mixed use, including residential development. Land releases in Palmerston East continue to progress with new lots being released to the market in Bellamack and Johnston. Only recently, expressions of interest for the development of Zuccoli were invited from the public.
We are aware there is a need for housing development in Katherine, something the previous Labor government seemed blind to. As a result, land in Katherine East has recently been made available for development through a public expression of interest process. Land has also been identified in Katherine for industrial development to support business growing in the region.
We have fast-tracked headworks in Kilgariff, Alice Springs, with external sewer, water and road upgrades, including a major intersection on the Stuart Highway, now complete. We are currently working through suitable developers for this important new subdivision.
The Department of Housing and the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment will work together with potential developers to ensure Kilgariff provides a range of housing products including opportunities for eligible HomeBuild Access clients to construct new affordable homes in Kilgariff.
We are working towards stabilising the housing market through good planning, streamlining of the development approval process and releasing more land. Housing affordability in the Northern Territory will not be solved overnight; it will take time. However, we have the right strategies in place to get the job done.
Public housing: housing affordability affects a great many people but there are some for whom home ownership is but a pipe dream and private rental is out of their reach. These people need extra assistance and this is where public housing is so important. The Department of Housing has an extensive public housing property portfolio throughout the Northern Territory consisting of single and multiple dwellings, villages, and unit complexes.
There are significant issues relating to the age, configuration and location of existing public housing stock, with many dwellings and complexes approaching the end of their economic life. This has been exacerbated by changes in tenant profiles over the last 25 years including more single people needing households, and more tenants with high or complex needs.
It is fair to say that large numbers of public housing dwellings and complexes are well located on sites that are close to services. Many unit and flat complexes are substantially underdeveloped. They often have sizeable common areas which might have been great 30 years ago, but now create huge antisocial behaviour problems with uninvited visitors using them to congregate. We can all point to public housing complexes that experience these problems.
We can also identify public housing complexes that, by the nature of their configuration and complexity of tenants living close together, are not only problematic but are unpleasant places for people to live. They are not good for the tenants and they are certainly not good for the neighbours. The reality is there is no easy or cheap way to fix these problems. These social issues present challenges to the management of public housing.
These issues are not unique to the Territory. Nationally and internationally public housing providers have recognised the errors of the past; concentration of public housing just does not work.
More and more, there has been progressive redevelopment of public housing sites and suburbs to reduce concentrations of social disadvantage. Contemporary and well-designed public housing close to services is necessary to ensure the best social inclusion outcomes are achieved for tenants and Territorians more broadly.
Public housing complexes in suburbs are being replaced through the creation of new, economically and socially viable mixed-use developments. These incorporate a small proportion of high-needs public housing, affordable rental accommodation, affordable home ownership, and commercial use in some instances.
I have asked the Department of Housing to start some urgent work to guide the redevelopment of public housing and identify sites that can be redeveloped as soon as possible. I particularly asked the department to look at complexes such as Runge Street, as we all know, Kurringal, Tomaris Court and Hudson Fysh flats in Darwin, and Elliott Street in Alice Springs. The department will look at some smaller redevelopments in suburbs with high concentrations of public housing.
These sites provide a significant opportunity for the government to make a major contribution to meet urban infill targets and support delivery of our housing objectives under the Real Housing for Growth plan.
Of course, any redevelopment requires tenants to be relocated. This takes time and needs to be sensitively managed as we are asking them to leave their homes.
We would all agree that the redevelopment of the former Wirrina public housing site in the village at Parap is a great demonstration of urban renewal and infill alongside an existing commercial and serviced hub. It took 12 months to relocate tenants and delayed public housing allocation to people on the waiting list. The Department of Housing will look at creative ways to organise relocation without placing pressure on that waiting list.
We will be asking industry to give us their ideas and seeking their expertise to best deliver these redevelopments. This will be done through an open and competitive process.
I particularly want these developments to:
reduce concentrations of disadvantage
encourage community renewal through a better mix of housing types and affordable housing opportunities that meet current and future housing requirements
provide better housing for our senior population
build strong and integrated communities
get the best value for government assets by working with private sector partnerships.
Remote Housing: significant outcomes have been achieved to date in the delivery of the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing. The department has achieved its targets of 934 new houses and 2915 refurbishments and rebuilds under challenging circumstances.
This has come at a cost and this government remains concerned that many more houses could have been built or fixed had better planning and delivery methodologies been applied earlier.
The Territory has 16 of the nation’s 25 Remote Service Delivery priority sites, and 73 communities and Alice Springs and Tennant Creek town camps to service, covering about 5000 dwellings and up to 40 000 remote Indigenous tenants.
It should also be noted that even at the end of this program it has been recognised there will be in excess of $2bn of unmet needs in our remote communities. Something this government will be taking up with federal government into the future.
The level of funding attributed to the Territory from NPARIH should have been far greater. The Territory has punched well above its weight and has been delivering at around triple the pace of Western Australia and Queensland.
Now that the first phase of NPARIH has been completed this year, this government will be lobbying for governance arrangements to revert to those in place in other jurisdictions and for the responsibility of the program management to rest with the Northern Territory for the remainder of the program.
Whilst ruthless delivery targets have been met under the program, it has been heavily criticised for not meeting community expectations, particularly in respect to refurbishment works and ongoing remote Indigenous employment.
I will be ensuring there are alternative delivery models put in place that will reduce overhead costs, maximise local employment and community engagement, and increase the actual spending on construction and refurbishment.
We are focused on improving opportunities for local Indigenous business enterprises and the employment of local Indigenous workers through this program. This is because we recognise that creating job opportunities for Indigenous people at the local level is essential to addressing disadvantage and improving the livelihoods of Indigenous people in our communities.
Real Housing for Growth: let me conclude with some remarks about this government’s Real Housing for Growth project, which is truly innovative.
Through the Real Housing for Growth project we are supporting the new supply of an additional 2000 affordable homes throughout the Northern Territory over the next four years. The project aims to increase the supply of affordable housing and ease housing cost pressures to support the attraction and retention of key and skilled workers in the Territory.
This government has made a commitment to address housing affordability and supply through a range of strategies that promote tenure diversification and encourage wider housing choices for Territorians.
There is a clear need to stimulate affordable new supply and lessen market pressures for renters and home purchasers. That is why the Real Housing for Growth project incorporates both rental and home ownership initiatives. Through this plan, the government is particularly focused on facilitating the delivery of new housing for renters.
Considerable work has gone into developing a scheme that is attractive to developers and investors which will also meet the needs of Territory renters.
The scheme will be a win/win for property owners and renters. Property owners will have rent guarantees. Renters will only pay 70% of market rent with the government meeting the difference.
Earlier this year, the Department of Housing released a call for expressions of interest from developers and/or investors for proposals for the development of new dwellings across the Territory suitable for the scheme’s rental initiatives.
I am pleased to report that we had an overwhelming response to this initial EOI. We had hoped to receive sufficient proposals to construct 500 new dwellings in the first tranche, and we were blown away with the proposal for almost 800 separate dwellings.
We have completed the shortlisting process and are currently working towards finalising contracts for over 500 new homes across the Territory. The first contract was signed today.
Over 150 new affordable rental homes in the Darwin area.
Over 170 new homes in Palmerston.
Almost 150 new homes in Alice Springs.
60 new homes at Coolalinga.
50 new homes for Tennant Creek and Katherine.
For home purchasers entering the market for the first time, the First Home Owner Grants increased in December 2012 from $7000 to $25 000 for buyers purchasing newly constructed homes, and up to $12 000 for an existing property. Since then, more first homebuyers have been jumping into the property market. The figures speak for themselves.
In December 2012, 111 first home buyer grants were paid, up from 86 in the same month in 2011. In January 2013, 107 grants were paid, up from 84 in January last year. In February 2013, 113 first home buyer grants were paid again, up from 81 in February 2012.
The grant is more flexible than the stamp duty assistance as it can be used by applicants at their discretion. They can use it for anything: stamp duty, adding an extension to their home, buying furniture, carpet or whatever they choose. It is a grant. It is completely flexible for individual households.
The government also implemented the new HomeBuild Access loan products from 1 January 2013. This scheme only applies to new homes, unlike the former My New Home and HomeStart Extra schemes, HomeBuild Access loans are totally focused on real, new housing supply. Thirty of these loans have already been processed this year and are either already funded or at the approval in principle or final approval stage.
In conclusion, this government is taking action to put affordable roofs over the heads of ordinary Territorians and stop the drain of families leaving the Territory.
This is in stark contrast to Labor’s legacy of failure and inaction. Labor failed to plan for growth and failed to release enough land for new housing. Labor stood by while rents in the Northern Territory skyrocketed. This government, on the other hand, is tackling the problem of housing affordability from every possible angle and fast tracking the release of new land.
This government is streamlining the development approval processes, and has introduced a home buying scheme that is targeted at the new housing supply, and is providing an innovative rental subsidy scheme targeting new housing supply.
In our first year in government, the Country Liberals are taking responsible action where Labor failed for a decade.
Madam Speaker, I move that the House take note of this statement.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that housing affordability is one of the most critical issues in the Territory and an issue that affects every Territorian. Everyone needs a roof over their head. You would struggle to find a person who does not aspire to own their own home in their life or a person who is happy to pay high rents. Two huge challenges for us in the Territory are ensuring housing remains affordable to purchase and to rent. There are also many Territorians who face different housing affordability and availability issues than those who are on a reasonable wage. This is a group I deeply worry about because under this government they appear to be left by the wayside, and their struggle will only get worse.
As I said before, everyone needs a roof over their head. They need a place to live where they feel safe and secure, a place where they can live in a healthy environment, have a shower, cook a meal, clean their clothes, and get an adequate amount of rest – a place where they can get a good night’s sleep so they have a chance to function as human beings.
Without appropriate housing, people have little chance to contribute to the economy by keeping a job. They will struggle to take care of their family, and if kids are not well rested, how will they go at school that day, if they manage to get there? The consequences of a lack of affordable and appropriate housing are devastating at an individual, family, community and Territory-wide level.
Under the new CLP government there has been a significant change in the approach to the delivery and development of affordable housing, and in the last 12 months we have seen many changes for the worse.
We have also seen significant lags in important levers to drive the delivery of affordable housing throughout the Territory. One of those levers is land release. Upon coming to government this is an area you have decided to put an entirely new stamp on, despite the massive amount of work done and the progress prior to August 2012. You have scrapped Weddell. An immense body of planning work has gone into preparing Weddell as our next significant satellite city land release. It is ideally next to major established transport corridors, infrastructure and populations.
You have also scrapped the Greater Darwin Land Use Plan, again, despite the immense planning work that has gone into it. We hear you have a new vision to develop in a different area now, but again, I must ask what the reasons are and, with your change of direction, how much of a lag will you create on the supply of land? You believe infill development and units are going to meet the lag you have created by scrapping sound planning work and starting from scratch again.
How long will it be until new residential lots, and I am talking land release that was not already planned and commenced under Labor, can be turned off for new housing. I fear you have thrown this out to the far distance and this will be more pressure on housing supply and affordability.
Under Labor, the Palmerston East suburbs were being delivered and new housing continues to pop out of the ground at Zuccoli and Johnston. Muirhead, within my own electorate, is buzzing along and building a new vibrant and wonderful suburb. On the skyline in the Darwin CBD we can see cranes for unit development all over the place. This is something your government will try to claim as your own, but it was under Labor that these developments were planned and gained approvals.
It was not just in the Top End where work was being done to turn off land to assist the delivery of more housing. We have seen it happen across the Territory. We have also seen it happen in remote communities under the National Partnership Agreement for Remote Indigenous Housing. We have seen new subdivisions in our largest communities, an area I will talk further about in this reply.
Overall, we know land release is a critical lever in the delivery of affordable housing in the Territory and it is one the government has caused major delays to as it scraps major planning work. All that public consultation, all that work with industry and experts, and now you seem content to rely on existing land release projects delivered under the Labor government. Again, unit developments planned and approved under the Labor government, and infill developments which, through proper planning processes, can have extensive time lines.
Under the CLP government, getting into home ownership has also been made so much harder for people, especially those on low to middle incomes. We know the average price in Darwin and Palmerston is approximately $600 000. We also know the CLP government has made some massive cuts to first home ownership assistance. If we are to truly harness future economic growth opportunities and continue making the Territory a better place, we need more people to buy and invest in the Territory by buying a home.
This is no easy task when housing prices are on the up under the CLP government, and this looks set to continue because of the lag we are starting to see in land release planning.
The scrapping of the HOMESTART program was a bad move by the CLP government, especially the shared equity program that helped Territorians get their start in the housing market and make a life here. It worked because it did not leave people in housing stress with out of control mortgage payments, and it helped people get a little equity so they could eventually buy their home outright, with the government being paid its fair share at the market rate. It was a fantastic program with low deposits, a 35-year repayment time frame, and it worked for people in Darwin, Palmerston, the rural area, Tennant Creek, Katherine, and Alice Springs.
It was a program that worked because it helped people afford to buy a home and keep up with their mortgage repayments, and it was dumped. You dumped a fantastic affordable home ownership program. You also scrapped the My New Home, which was designed to help people into home ownership and to drive new housing.
The government’s new home ownership program, HomeBuild Access, has been in place since January this year, and I notice this statement is not crowing success about this scheme. To date, you have only had 30 loans, and of those, some are still going through the approval stages. This does not strike me as an effective home ownership program given it has been around for seven months. I note in June there were 25 loans, so we have only seen an increase of five since then.
In stark contrast, the programs you scrapped, HomeStart and My New Home, had almost 300 loans in the first six months. That is 300 under Labor’s popular and successful schemes for first home ownership versus 30 under the CLP government.
You are making it harder for people to buy a home. You are backing the wrong horse in this race, and this is something you need to look at again. You have replaced effective home ownership schemes with something which is not getting results.
In addition, you also scrapped the first homeowner stamp duty concession which provided up to $26 730 for up to a $540 000 purchase on a home. Now first homebuyers need to find the money to pay their stamp duty.
This government’s strategy was to increase the already existing first homeowner’s grant which we heard about in this statement. It went up from $7000 to $12 000 for established properties in the Darwin, Palmerston and rural areas, or $25 000 for new properties. It was also $25 000 for other areas of the Territory.
The difference between Labor versus the CLP to buy an established home in Darwin, Palmerston or the rural area valued at $540 000 for a first homeowner would have been $22 000. That is, under the CLP a first homebuyer needs to find an extra $22 000 to buy that first home.
If a first homebuyer was to buy a newly-built property in Darwin, Palmerston or the rural area at that $540 000 rate, under Labor last year that would have included the $10 000 BuildBonus. There would have been a difference of $19 000 between Labor and the CLP government’s first home ownership programs. First homeowners buying a brand new place will now need to find an extra $19 000 because of the CLP government’s changes.
You promote your first home ownership programs as a win but, in fact, homebuyers are not better off under the CLP government. There is less assistance and housing is not more affordable.
When we talk about affordable housing, it is important to look at what government does to provide homes for those on very low incomes. That is providing accommodation for people with little money and the inability to afford private market rents. These are Territorians who rely on public housing as it is all they can afford.
For some tenants, this government has increased their rent by approximately $200 a week. That is an extra $10 000 a year for people on low incomes which they now need to find. That is a huge hit to their livelihoods. This has happened to people just over the limit. I have seen cases where it has split families up, and members of the family have had to move out. I have seen people quit their jobs to stop earning money. That is not productive for our economy and does not help anyone. It certainly does not help their personal circumstances.
I have seen rents jacked up for elderly people with dementia. I have seen a person charged $400 a week to live at the Kurringal flats. It is a shocker. You have justified your desire to jack up the rent of low-income earning tenants to get more funding into public housing and to help push people out. This is a heartless cash grab because there are limited options on where people can go, even if they do want to get out.
Under the CLP government, it seems all efforts around housing are solely being put into the Real Housing for Growth policy which, essentially, is more affordable rental properties. Looking at the release today, it seemed to be purely targeted at workers.
I agree wholeheartedly we need to have more affordable rental accommodation to fill the growing gap between public housing and private market rents. Low- to middle-income earners are struggling to afford market rents. Everyone knows the cost of living here is through the roof. However, it seems you are only focused on this space to the detriment of affordable home ownership and public housing, because it appears to be neglected.
This government’s strategy has been to push people out of public housing by putting rents up over $10 000 a year in some cases. I hope specific allowances in the Real Housing for Growth policy have been made to allocate existing Territory Housing tenants into some of the new affordable rental stock. It is a logical progression.
I am keen to hear from the Housing minister whether there is a specific target which has been set for the new properties being built under the Real Housing for Growth properties for existing public housing tenants who are deemed as being over entitlement or appear to have better income earning prospects in front of them.
Ultimately, it is good for people to move out of public housing if they have the capacity to do so. There is a big gap there, and it would be interesting to see how many of those 2000 current public housing tenants you are specifically targeting with your new policy and scheme.
It is also concerning that, aside from making rents unaffordable for many struggling tenants, you are also using the sale of public housing as another cash grab. You have stated you will be selling 50 properties, and I am be interested to see how many of those have been sold in the last year and how many more will be sold in the next 12 months. I have heard mixed messages about what you plan to do with this money. I have heard that you will use it for R&M. I have also been told it will be reinvested into building new public housing. I am still not sure what will happen with it.
I cannot understand why the government is not selecting more suitable sites for redevelopment, such as putting a duplex on a very large lot of land so public housing tenants such as seniors or people with disabilities can live there. These are the opportunities I want to see more of. They are in the budget that recently passed, and clearly there were no new plans for anything to be built in the public housing space that was not already allocated under Labor.
I am adamant that the money generated from selling public housing must be reinvested into existing and public housing. You are stripping public housing stock out of the market and not replacing it. The number of public housing properties is reducing under the watch and willingness of this CLP government.
I am glad to see the CLP government is following Labor’s election commitment in planning for the redevelopment of some of our most aged public housing complexes such Runge Street, Kurringal, Hudson Fysh and Tomaris Court.
I appreciate the briefing the Housing minister’s office provided the member for Fannie Bay and me this week, after we met with some very stressed tenants from Kurringal. I am eagerly awaiting the outcomes of the expression of interest from Runge Street. I hope to see a sound, mixed development that does not send public housing backwards with limited returns to public housing units.
I wait to see what comes of your plans to redevelop the Kurringal flats when putting expressions of interest out in the near future. In the meantime, tenants need to be kept closely informed of your plans, given suitable choices for relocation, and not rushed out of their homes.
Public housing tenants are no different to you or I, and moving house is a stressful process for anyone. Some tenants are stressed because they are unsure where their future lies, and some have had been pressured to quickly decide where they live.
I look forward to receiving more detail on the future of Kurringal, and to see what is happening with Runge Street.
It is important that you maintain public housing numbers to ensure tenants have suitable and affordable options when you eventually knock down some of those complexes.
It is concerning that public housing vacancies have increased under the CLP, meaning less affordable housing available for Territorians on low incomes. At estimates we heard that vacancy numbers for dwellings was nearing 300; that is an increase of 100 for the same time in the previous year.
I fear this number has grown due to Kurringal undergoing some decanting whilst they decide how to redevelop it, and as part of the government plans to sell off individual dwellings. This means longer wait times for people on the public housing wait list, which has certainly increased under the last 12 months of the CLP.
The numbers are certainly on the increase in most one bedroom non-pensioner, one bedroom pensioner, two bedroom and three bedroom dwellings in Alice Springs, Darwin, Casuarina, Palmerston and Katherine; and people are waiting longer to get in.
I am concerned affordable public housing is on the decline, taking us back to the days when government used public housing as a cash cow. It was heartening to finally hear those on the other side of the Chamber this week acknowledge the immense work and achievement of the $1.7bn, 10-year National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing, or NPARIH. As I said earlier, everybody needs a roof over their head, and it is important that it is safe and secure, in a healthy and liveable environment. For too long, families in the bush have struggled with overcrowding and deteriorating housing. Although vast improvements have been made under NPARIH, there is still a very long journey ahead.
The minister said the $1.7bn investment in NPARIH should have been far greater. Had this been two years ago, I would have fallen over to read this statement, given the condemnation we have heard from the CLP about NPARIH over the years.
No, $1.7bn is not enough to meet the backlog, but it has been a solid start. The joint Territory and Australian government effort to deliver more housing in the bush is a program that must continue well beyond 2018. Successive governments, no matter what their stripes or their colours, need to work together to continue this investment in remote Indigenous housing. We still have a long way to go, but a lot has been achieved.
At the end of May almost 2800 refurbishments and rebuilds were completed and over 900 new homes built with another 72 under way. That is 3700 families living in the bush in new or improved housing. That is a change for the better.
Not all families are benefiting and the huge journey needs to continue in this area. Aside from the continued investment in infrastructure and housing going forward, there needs to be sustained and ongoing investment in property and tenancy management.
Wadeye is one of the largest recipients of NPARIH investment, and when I recently visited, I could see the condition of some of the new properties was concerning. Property and tenancy management must be maintained for the new housing to ensure it has a 30-40 year lifespan. I was also concerned to read the new employment figures for NPARIH. The program has always had a target of 20% Indigenous employment so local people have a chance to get a job, gain some formal training and improve their long-term work prospects.
I note you are grouping NPARIH and Stronger Futures workforces together in your reporting, which indicates that in NPARIH alone, you are no longer meeting your Indigenous employment targets, so fewer Indigenous Territorians are benefiting from working in these programs.
It was disappointing the statement failed to mention the area of social and community housing. I recently met with a range of non-government organisations that provide crisis and supported accommodation, along with transitional and affordable housing to those who are desperately in need. They tell me that desperate people are being turned away and the numbers are growing.
Probably one of the most disheartening conversations I had was with an organisation that assists domestic violence victims and has a certain number of houses to accommodate people. They house victims and their families through a transitional process when they leave their partner, but at some stage other victims and families will also need that accommodation. As they wait on the waiting list or try to find something affordable, their hopes and prospects just do not eventuate. People want a roof over their head and a safe and secure place to live. The most horrible aspect to hear was that, in some of the cases, people gave up hope in the long-term prospect of finding housing and eventually went back to their partners. That is really sad.
It is an area where we need to work with the non-government sector to explore other housing options that can be provided when people leave their horrible lives and try to make new ones. They have been brave enough to leave and find something for the longer term that will work for their families and will give their kids a good future. I am hoping to see a little more work in that space.
In conclusion, we can all safely say that every member of this parliament agrees that the delivery of housing is critical to the future of the Territory and that housing needs to be affordable. The CLP government has put all its eggs in one basket with the Real Housing for Growth program and has lost sight of low- to middle-income earners’ aspirations to become home owners, and public housing tenants are being left behind.
I hope in the next few years the CLP government will refocus their attention on affordable housing areas that have fallen behind and ensure they do not become irretrievable and drive people to overcrowding, homelessness or having no option but to leave the Territory.
Mr KURRUPUWU (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I support minister Chandler’s statement on affordable housing in the Territory. Minister Chandler and the Giles government have set a cracking pace trying to overcome the lack of focus of the previous Labor government in making land and housing available to Territory families and workers more affordable.
Within seven months in government, Crown land has been identified with the potential for an additional 1000 homes. The minister and the Giles government immediately began to actively seek and assess subdivision proposals to make these homes a reality. Our government is committed to building 2000 affordable homes over four years.
The City Gate development at Daly and Wood Streets is an example of developers working with the government, with some units available to lease and rent at a subsidised rate to make them more affordable. City Gate will include a total of 325 one and two bedroom dwellings, with around 10% to be included as Real Housing for Growth.
Other sites in Darwin identified for future development include the 1.45 ha Sports House site in Fannie Bay, Tomaris Court, the CBD, Runge Street public housing, Berrimah Farm and the NTG Fleet site.
Developers, investors and builders are actively involved in overcoming the housing and land crisis which resulted under Labor. They know they can trust the Giles government and minister Chandler to deliver.
The Country Liberal government can activate business for the benefit of the Territory working family. An important add-on change is we are speeding up the assessment of development applications by removing the needless procedural bureaucracy and red tape loved so much by the opposition. Besides that, our government is moving to actively assist renters and those wanting to buy their own home. For people renting, we will provide 30% subsidies to those workers being squeezed hard by high private market rents. For Territorians wanting to own a new home, the government’s HomeBuild Access package offers low-interest loans or deposit subsidy options to assist Territorians.
As a result of the government’s action to slash red tape and speed up the development application process, there has been a record number of residential building approvals. This boom in building is acting to further stimulate the economy and grow more jobs, and is putting the Territory at the forefront of economic growth in Australia.
In the year to March, the number of approvals for housing increased 20.2% to 774 with development in the new suburbs of Muirhead in Darwin, and Bellamack and Johnston in Palmerston. In addition, the Territory Country Liberal government is spending nearly $53m to upgrade and improve urban public housing in 2013.
The previous government neglected public housing and let many sites run down. Land release lagged behind with the result there was continued increased pressure on rent and an increased demand for public housing spaces. As the Territory government pays back Labor’s huge debt and grows our economy, we will invest more in public housing.
The Territory government has a two-pronged approach to increasing the rental supply to attract developers and assist potential tenants. The Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment, and Housing, Peter Chandler, has said developers and investors will be attracted by a guaranteed government lease and eligible works will receive a rent subsidy.
Budget 2013 has invested $275.15m in housing. From this, $3.8m will support the head leasing rental initiative for the Real Housing for Growth plan. The budgeted amount for head leasing will increase to $9.9m from 2015-16. The minister has announced the grant will make a tremendous difference to homebuyers and will help stimulate building.
The first home grant provided $25 000 for a new home and land package to build a home throughout the Territory. For people buying an existing home there is a $12 000 grant for Darwin, Palmerston and Darwin rural areas and $25 000 for the rest of the Territory, as there are limited new homes in these areas. Mr Chandler said there was also a principal place of residence rebate of up to $7000 for non-first homebuyers to buy a new home or land.
The government also supports the homebuyers’ initiative to encourage keen homebuyers to have eligibility and finance pre-approved and ready to buy the moment houses come on the market. In addition, Budget 2012-13 continued the huge Territory and Commonwealth investment to make significant improvement for housing in remote communities. In total, the Territory budget has an allocation of $216.5m to build new homes and upgrade existing houses in remote communities.
The Indigenous housing program will have developed 934 new houses, 450 rebuilds of existing houses and 2500 refurbishments across 73 remote Indigenous communities and a number of community living areas, or town camps, in the Northern Territory in its first five years.
Recently, the minister announced the next stage of significant subdivision with at least 200 lots in Palmerston East. This will deliver a minimum of 200 residential lots in one of the Territory’s fastest growing areas. The minister achieved a tremendous amount in a relatively short space of time. He has done this because he knows he has to make a significant difference to the Territory’s working families. We need affordable, efficient, and sustainable housing. This is something not appreciated or acted upon by the previous Labor government. As a result, it put the Territory economy and population growth at significant risk and placed Territory individuals and families under significant financial strain.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Arafura for his contribution. I would like to have heard some recognition that the Tiwi Islands had one of the largest numbers of houses built under SIHIP, for better or worse. There were some issues, but considering the state of the houses some years ago to what is there now, it would be right to say there was, and still is, a housing program at Bathurst Island that has relieved overcrowding. We all know there were some problems with SIHIP, as it was called then, but there should be some recognition that the previous government put a big effort into housing and employment there. In fact, the Tiwis had one of the highest Indigenous employment participation rates of any community in the Northern Territory.
It would have been good to hear from the member for Arafura about another area: Aboriginal home ownership. It is not an easy area to go through. In Nguiu - or its new name I keep forgetting, sorry ...
Mr Kurrupuwu: Wurrumiyanga.
Mr WOOD: … there were issues about the township lease and there has been much debate over years gone by. However, there are still issues in other communities with how an Aboriginal person gets a lease to put a house on Aboriginal land. I am partly going through that process on behalf of my wife at the moment, and it is not that simple.
That is an area I would like to hear more about, particularly from Indigenous members of the government, and the government itself, as to where they see that opportunity being developed to relieve the burden on public housing and give Aboriginal people the same opportunities to own their own house as I have. It is not easy, and this is not a criticism of government because it was difficult for the previous government …
Ms Lee: interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Mumble, mumble, mumble. It is something we need to look at because you cannot have Aboriginal communities relying on public housing. The cost is extraordinarily high and there has to be some light at the end of the tunnel for governments because in the future they are not going to say that is an acceptable goal. It is an area that needs more debate and discussion. I thank the member for Arafura for his contribution.
A question for the minister which is never asked is: what does the minister describe as housing affordability? What does the government say is an affordable house? Do you have a figure? Is an affordable house one that a single income family can afford?
Unless on an extremely high income, I am unsure that anyone in the Northern Territory on one income could afford to buy a house. Most families have two people working, simply because the cost of housing is so high. It would be good to hear from the government what it defines as affordable housing. Does it mean a 200 m2 block with no room to swing a cat: one bedroom, a toilet and shower, and room to park the car? Or does it mean a reasonably sized block that has been developed at a reasonable price on which a reasonably sized house can be built? We do not debate these issues enough.
Housing affordability is a broad term. If the land is too expensive, you will not have enough money to build a house on it. If you can bring the cost of the land down to a reasonable price, there is a fair chance you could build what I will call an affordable house. The government needs to define what they are trying to achieve when saying ‘housing affordability’.
I have had a bit to do with the new suburb of Zuccoli mainly because, as Madam Speaker would know - backs onto her electorate – it is just over the road from my electorate. For many years, people on Radford Road in the rural area knew the great suburban growth was coming towards them, and they feared that day because before then they had a nice lot of bush next door. The day has come when Zuccoli is right on their doorstep. There have been discussions with developers who want to reduce the buffer zone which was originally 4000 m2 blocks. That was done deliberately to give a buffer between the suburban area and the rural blocks, which makes a lot of sense.
I was at the discussion with the developer and the community. The argument with the developer was that he wanted to divide the 4000m2 blocks into smaller lots because larger blocks were unaffordable. He was basically saying the blocks in Darwin are too big. If you want affordable blocks you have to look at something like 400 m2. That is affordability. This is a southern company, coming to the Northern Territory and saying if you want affordable housing this is the size of the blocks you must have.
I said it is obvious that no one in Zuccoli will ever captain the Australian cricket team, because they will never have any room to play cricket. The developers reply was that there is a park on the corner, etcetera. Not only do we have this approach that the only way you will have affordable land is to have a smaller block, we are losing the discussion about affordable living: having a tropical house with room for natural airflow because we will have small blocks and houses that rely on air conditioning.
We are not looking at the social issues of crowding people into small blocks. What is the effect on families with very little room to move? Not only room to move but you will notice developers, minister for Planning, who continually try to reduce the size of roads so you can park one car allowing one car to pass, with tiny nature strips because the smaller the road the more blocks of land you can divide. They will argue that makes the subdivision more affordable; it does not necessarily make it is more liveable.
It would like to hear about the government’s vision of what it classes as affordable housing. The government has these great ideas, as this is what the statement is about. Look at the amount of infrastructure that went into Zuccoli, which was not an easy parcel of land to develop. It has steep, rocky areas and creeks, etcetera. I often go down Lambrick Avenue and see the enormous amount of headworks that went into that subdivision. Who pays for that subdivision? The government is paying for the headworks, not the developer. The developer works off those headworks.
If you are going to look at affordable housing and the government is going to open up land then, in truth, the government has to say what its contribution is because that is the taxpayers’ contribution. If you subsidise more of the infrastructure, the housing affordability amount will go lower and lower.
If we are debating housing affordability, we need to know what amount of money the government is putting in, the amount the developer is putting in, and what the person who wants to buy a parcel of land has to pay for it. They are some of the basic foundations of any debate about the true cost of housing in the Northern Territory. If you do not have those figures, you can gloss over the reality of life.
Minister, I will not go into all the things the member for Wanguri said. She covered a range of topics that were quite appropriate.
Page 7 of the statement says:
That is news to me. I understood the Territory government established an NT Planning Commission to look at the development of the greater Darwin area, including Berrimah Farm. There has been a lot of discussion about the possible use of the Berrimah Farm area. Especially in light of the fact it is close to the Darwin East Arm port and is surrounded by two industrial areas: Tivendale Road and Pruen Road.
I ask the minister whether the government has made a decision about Berrimah Farm without it going out for consultation through the NT Planning Commission. This statement says ‘… Berrimah Farm has been identified …’
Mr Chandler interjecting.
Mr WOOD: That is right. ‘Identified for development’, would have be the proper words, whether it is industrial or residential is still to be decided. It does not quite say that in the statement so I was a little suspicious of the way it was written. I hope it is not the case that something has been decided, because the NT Planning Commission, I presume, is looking at this area so that will come up for discussion.
Another area the government could look at, which I put to the previous government, is land trusts. Land trusts are a way to have affordable housing. In America, there are about 140 land trusts. Land trusts are where the government leases the land, or a philanthropic person who owns a large parcel of land allows people to build their houses on that land, and they pay rent to have the house on the land.
Some people compare it with Canberra where people have a lease. I put it to the minister to look at land trusts when you are looking at options. They are part of the mix in the United States. They allow low- to middle-income earners to have enough money to buy their house. The theory is, if you are buying a house, half the cost is the house, half is the land. If you can lease the land, you reduce the requirement for people to have a large mortgage because they only have to get a mortgage for the house, and have a lease arrangement with the owner of the land.
This is not something new; I have not made this up. I suggest it as it may be an alternative for the government, and it may be that parts of Kilgariff could come under a land trust. You cannot sell the land for a huge profit because it remains as a land trust with certain ideals, and that area is basically for people on a low to middle incomes. They can still sell their premises, but it is more or less to cover the cost of improvements. It is not meant to be used as an investment. However, it gives people an opportunity to own a house without huge burdens of paying back large mortgages.
The other area that is often missed is outstations. The Minster for Local Government is looking at improving some of the outstation houses - $5200. I am unsure what that will do in reality, but that is the program. My understanding is outstations miss out all the time. I am unsure if the government has looked at whether there should be some program. It might only be small but there is a program for housing for people who want to go back to their own land.
Again, I use the example of where my sisters-in-law live. They live in a small house, and unless they have enough money to build a house; which I doubt because they are on low incomes, there is no future in that area for new houses. All those houses were originally ATSIC houses. It is a pity we cannot go to some of the communities towards the great China wall in the Barkly area where many of the ATSIC houses are abandoned. The ATSIC houses were built some years ago and still sit there with no one living in them.
Mr Giles: Never occupied
Mr WOOD: Not occupied. It is a pity they could not be literally …
Mr McCarthy: They were occupied. I lived there for four years.
Mr Giles: Some have never been occupied.
Mr WOOD: But some ..
Mr McCarthy: No, you are wrong.
Mr WOOD: Regardless, they were occupied at some time.
Mr McCarthy: The resource centre was never occupied.
Mr WOOD: Yes, I have been to some of those places, even on the other side of the Territory, where they are abandoned. It is a pity they could not be picked up and used where people want them. But that is another issue.
When talking about housing affordability, and people live in all places - suburbs, growth towns or whatever the new name is for an outstation - and that should be part of this discussion.
To bring it a little closer to home, I would love to know whether you have a policy on covenants. You have housing in your area and everyone has to have a blue, black, green or orange roof, although I notice they are getting rid of those silly colours in a hot climate. However, covenants have a fair bit to do with cost. You must have a particular kind of house otherwise you cannot build there. When you sign your contract there are certain conditions such as you cannot have a hot water system on the roof because it looks ugly or something. I wonder whether the idea of covenants should be looked at. If we are trying to reduce red tape and cost, covenants are something to consider.
I am unsure if they have covenants in Tennant Creek. Good luck to them if they do not, but they have them in Muirhead and Lyons. I bet you two bob Defence Housing does not want to have common things such as a solar hot water systems on the roof. How unbecoming! Yet they cost more money when you have to put them in a different place. I ask the government, if it is looking at ideas for affordability, whether covenants are adding to the cost.
Minister, you took a trip with me around parts of the rural area and have been with the Mayor also. The water pipeline being built to the gaol is huge and has enormous capacity for water. I know where you are thinking of putting the hospital and hope you give some thought to that land near the prison. That could be developed into 1 ha blocks with town water without needing much done.
Obviously it has to go through the planning process, and someone will have to build it, but that land is fairly straightforward. It has infrastructure and a bitumen road that goes right past. It has power going to the prison, it has town water, and 1 ha blocks means you do not need storm water, just a rural road. You could open 100 blocks there before the end of year if you wanted to and they would be affordable because you do not need the same standard of development as you do in Zuccoli. It would give people a choice. Out of 100 blocks you might have 30 for first homeowners and the rest go at market price, or something like that, so you can cover those costs.
There are opportunities; it is your Crown land. You have water supply and electricity going right past. We are desperate for some rural blocks to be developed. I believe the Planning Commission is looking at the forestry land, but there are issues there in relation to whether you can have septic tanks, so that has not quite got off the ground yet.
The other area is Humpty Doo, and you know there is a development that you have to decide on soon about 78 blocks for residents outside the Humpty Doo district centre. I, like other people, do not believe it is appropriate at the moment unless it is in the district centre. You have land within the district centre that has not been developed. We are screaming out for a retirement village, as the member for Goyder will tell you. I could not get the previous government to do it because they said there was not enough infrastructure, it was too costly, and there was not a need for it. They did a survey, but sometimes it depends who you ask when you do a survey, some people fill them in and some do not.
I can tell you, and I believe the member for Goyder would agree, if you put 20 houses there as part of a retirement village complex, they would be gone tomorrow. There are many people in the rural area who want to stay in the rural area. They do not necessarily want to live in Coolalinga, which is a private development. I know you have it in your numbers here, but the 60 blocks is a private development, not a government development. People do not particularly want to live in that style. They would like to have a retirement village where people of a similar age would also like to live.
You have the land, you have upgraded the sewage ponds and no doubt you have done the right thing. I congratulate you for opening up the industrial area in Humpty Doo. There needs to be …
Mr Chandler: A water tower.
Mr WOOD: Yes, that is right. That may have to be part of the planning, or we just give everyone a rain tank. They have come off rural blocks, so they might be all right.
We are desperate. People do not want to live in Tiwi or elsewhere. They want to stay in the rural area. I ask you to give that some consideration. Two areas in which the government could help the rural area with housing are forestry and Humpty Doo.
From a local point of view, you mentioned Sports House. I may have to get an extension.
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move an extension of time for the member to complete his remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: I am interested in what is happening with the sale of Sports House near the Waratah Oval. I have been approached and others have been also. Where did badminton go? There is at least one sporting club, which I have been told has approximately 1000 members. Maybe the minister for Sport could tell us. If you are going to sell it off, will some of the money you get back from selling that valuable parcel of land go to giving these people a home? I am told the government does not seem too interested in what happens to them. Well, too bad. They do not have a place yet, believe it or not, and it is quite a popular sport in Darwin. The shadow minister for Sport probably understands that better than me. A number of people have rang me who are concerned that sport has no future in Darwin because it has does not have a home.
If the government is taking their sporting club home away and selling that parcel of land for probably quite a few million dollars, some of that money could go to building them a new facility at Marrara. There is land at Marrara next to the gymnastics area where there were plans for some type of facility with that grassed area out the front. If you are going to sell that land for housing, at least do something for the people who lose their sporting home, if that is possible.
In summing up, it would be good to hear if you have a definition of what housing affordability is. Is it cheap land, or what? If it is cheap land, how will you achieve cheap land? That has always been a difficulty. You mentioned you have infill, and I received a good briefing from CEO, John Coleman, about what parcels of land you believe you can use throughout the suburbs. The question I ask is, what pressure does that put on existing infrastructure?
One of the big problems in the rural area, and I am not barracking for the rural area to be subdivided, but you could have some limited infrastructure in the rural area at the moment. If you tried to subdivide a couple of streets that had a water pipe down the middle you might find that is inadequate. Who pays for the upgrade of infrastructure? You are doing infill in various places around Darwin. It sounds easy, saying we can put six houses on this vacant parcel of land, but does that process does put any strain on existing infrastructure? Or is it not so many houses that is does not have a major effect? That is one of the things that has to be taken into account, because if you have to upgrade the infrastructure then the houses on those blocks would not be as affordable. I am interested to see whether that is an issue.
I appreciate the statement. We have had plenty of similar statements over the years, minister; you would know that. Housing affordability is a very common topic when sitting on this side. I have yet to see in the Northern Territory, especially around Darwin, what I would call an affordable house. If you can bring the price of housing down, you will have achieved something no other government has been able to do.
Mr STYLES (Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, I support the minister’s statement in relation to housing affordability, and I thank the member for Nelson for raising some very interesting points.
Member for Nelson, you mentioned Aboriginal housing. Currently we are required, under NPARIH, to have a certain style of home in Aboriginal communities.
About six weeks ago I travelled to Canberra for a number of reasons. One of which was to determine if minister Macklin would consider some alternative styles of home that, as a result of our enquiries, we believe Aboriginal people would like to live in. It is interesting when you travel in the bush - I am sure you have - that some Aboriginal people say they want something different to what we are giving them. We tried to give people living in the bush some different designs. For weeks we tried to get an appointment to discuss this issue but the sad thing was that when we went to Canberra, minister Macklin would not see us. There are many people who have alternative designs for homes that can be built far more cheaply than the current slab and block method that some people do not want to live in.
I imagine one day people might want something like that, but at the moment they are asking for something quite different. It was with great regret that I left Canberra not being able to meet with minister Macklin to discuss some very important issues about the design of Aboriginal housing. It would involve anything up to 85% local content of Aboriginal people involved in building these homes. That is sad, because when we talk about capacity building in the remote and regional parts of the Northern Territory, this government is very keen on involving local people to do local things.
There are a number of things being discussed on this side that will benefit local people - an interesting suite of things they can do in relation to things coming out of the Department of Infrastructure. I will not stop. I am hoping that whoever is in government after the next federal election will look at a change in design. I have certainly been assured by Tony Abbott’s team that they will look at the proposals I was trying to talk to minister Macklin about.
You talked about affordable housing. I was recently in Bellamack and I saw house and land packages for under $400 000. I was very impressed with them. They were better than the first house I lived in here in Tiwi. You talked about smaller blocks. It was not a very big block. It certainly was not a very big house. If you put a queen-size bed in the master bedroom you could only just squeeze between the wall and the side of the bed and the wall and the wardrobe. The wardrobe was slightly wider than the desk I am standing at. I kid you not, it was probably only about 200 mm wider than this desk, and that was supposed to be for two adults. The second and third bedrooms were even smaller. It was a concrete box, a Barclay. I am sure it would not go anywhere in a cyclone because it is solid concrete. It was as hot as Hades, but we survived and spent 12 years in that home before we shifted to a place in Nightcliff. My kids grew up in it, and fortunately they had a small area at the side where they could get a cricket bat out. They broke a few windows in the house, but I gladly replaced those.
There are alternatives available. I have a few notes relating to some of the things you said. Retirement villages: as the Minister for Senior Territorians I take great interest in this area and have been talking to many people in relation to ideas. We have been talking to the Planning Commission about how we can put some of these ideas into practice. When we came into government we inherited a mess in Housing and are still trying to sort it out. Sadly, it takes a while to get all these issues on to the table and plan correctly because we want to ensure we continue once we press the start button.
When talking about retirement villages, particularly rural retirement villages, I have been approached with ideas that I like. I have been talking to Mr Coleman about that as well. We have been talking to the Planning Commission and hopefully in the not too distant future we may be able to roll out some great ideas for retirement villages in the rural area. Not just the type of rural living, but affordable rural seniors’ villages. I am glad you raised that and I look forward to being able to give you more information in the near future.
The Planning Commission is looking at many options, and I am sure land trusts is one. People live in caravan parks. There are two caravan parks in my electorate. I doorknock those people fairly regularly. A number of people in one of the caravan parks have built exemplary homes and additions. They probably have nearly as much room as I had in my house in Tiwi. It is amazing that when you look at the front of these places they look just like caravans with a few additions, but when you get inside and out the back you can see they are beautiful homes.
These are not necessarily people on low incomes. The people I am talking about both have professional jobs at Royal Darwin Hospital. They love it. People choose to do this in caravan parks, one reason being security. Caravan parks do not seem to have the same problems as units or houses in close proximity. There is a different set of rules, as you know, and we have had that debate in this Chamber previously.
Mr Wood: I used to have the Sundowner, remember, and it is still empty.
Mr STYLES: Yes, I remember the debate on the Sundowner. There are people who enjoy living in caravan parks. I see many people there who have kids. There are park areas at the front of caravan parks on McMillans Road. I see them playing cricket there all the time. You drive past on the way home and there are kids playing in the big park area at the front.
There are alternatives to getting the four or five bedroom, three bathroom, four car lock-up garage as a new homeowner. I could not afford that so I lived in a three-bedroom unit with three kids for quite some time. It is about what we can afford at the time. However, there are options where people - you need to be on a good single income to do it on your own, but they are out there. We are working on the affordable housing issues you raise, and trying to get people into their own homes.
Once you get people into a decent home, if you can then come up with the scheme where we can help them - we have homebuyer incentives, we have increased the first homebuyer grant from $7000 to $25 000 for buyers purchasing a newly constructed home, and up to $12 000 for existing properties.
I believe the member for Wanguri quoted figures in relation to Labor versus the CLP and the race of houses, etcetera. In December 2011 there were 86 grants for first homebuyers. That equates to approximately 20 fewer grants than what we gave in December 2012.
In December 2011, the ALP government gave 86 grants, in December 2012 the CLP government gave 111. In January 2012 they gave 84 grants, the CLP gave 107. In February 2012, the ALP gave 81 grants, February 2013, we gave 113 grants. We win that game. There are many things happening in relation to that.
Land is too expensive, member for Nelson, I agree with you. I remember sitting on the other side of the House when in opposition trying to tell the government they needed to release more land. I held up a bar graph which showed the 2010, 2011 and 2012 figures.
In approximately 2010 we were looking at 2400 blocks required, and around the 1100 to 1200 mark were turned off. In 2011, about the same number of blocks were required and, from memory, about 900 blocks were turned off. In 2012 - these are rough figures - the same number of blocks was required and only about 590 were turned off.
That is a real problem when looking at the availability of land. Of course, if you take the situation that did occur - and we were warning them - I remember being here in 2008 saying, ‘You need to do this otherwise you are going to have that’. I am not one to say I told you so, but I told you so.
If there are only 100 blocks of land and 200 people, every block of land you sell will be an auction. Someone will want that block of land to build so they will keep paying until somebody runs out of money. That is one block. If you do that for 100 blocks with 200 people, there is an auction on every block of land. If you do not supply the marketplace with sufficient land, the prices will go up.
When that is finished you have 100 people without a block. What are they going to do? They want somewhere to live so they go to the rental market. They go to the rental market and there is an auction on the 50 rental places available. Eventually, we run out of new homes to build, we run out of rental properties. Then people start to live in cars, tents, caravan parks, and they start to crowd into houses.
I recently heard of a place in the northern suburbs where there are 19 people living in a three-bedroom home. I have taken some action to try to find out exactly where that home is because I suspect they are running an illegal boarding home. However, 19 people living in a three-bedroom home with an enclosed area downstairs supposedly charging exorbitant rent.
We have a problem. It is not of our making; we have inherited this mess from the previous Labor government. Its failure to release sufficient land - on those figures, when you look at the amount of blocks required, it was not meeting the target.
These were not our targets, they were the previous government’s targets which they set for themselves and did not meet. Of course we will have an auction on every block of land, rental property and even tent sites, because once you push the price up, the cost of rentals goes up because if it is an investment property, somebody wants a return. People will pay more and more money until they get the property. If you go to the caravan parks and try to get a tent site, it will cost you a fortune.
I have not heard of women and kids living in tents recently, but if you find someone I would like to know because we will try to help them. We helped many people, in the years we were in opposition, to find locations.
I want to raise some things the member for Wanguri said. Kurringal flats - she said we were charging people $400. My understanding is there is a sliding rental scale for people accommodated in Kurringal flats and other public housing. If you earn a certain amount of money you pay the full rental price; if you are earning less than that, then it is a sliding scale. If someone was paying $400 in a flat, perhaps it is because they earn X number of dollars. That is a scale I believe is applied to everyone who is in public housing.
I recall when we were on the other side of the Chamber there were quite a number of vacant public housing homes in the northern suburbs. I think at one stage there were 133 vacant homes sitting idle. I recall two properties in Moil Crescent that we pointed out to the government. One had been vacant for three years, and the other for five years. I hardly think the member for Wanguri can accuse us of destroying public housing …
Mr Giles: She was the advisor for the Housing minister.
Mr STYLES: What was that interjection? The member for Wanguri was the advisor for the Housing minister? That is very interesting. Thank you, Chief Minister, for the interjection. I was not aware of that, but thank you for that interesting information. What was the advisor doing in those days to try to fix the problem of all the vacant homes in the northern suburbs and the houses that had been vacant for three to five years? I find it amazing that the member for Wanguri accuses us of this when all we did is inherit a mess which we have been trying to fix.
Let us talk about planning. The Country Liberals established the Planning Commission, which is an independent authority to develop strategic plans and planning policies to cater for growth. We have to ensure we do this because we have to get it right. There are so many young people depending on us to do that. That is something else I warned the government about. People were coming to my electorate office - and I know many young people in the Northern suburbs having been there for many years. I worked with these young people who were saying, ‘Sorry, Mr Styles, we have to leave town because we cannot afford to live here’. We had to fix that, and we are.
The priority of the Planning Commission is to bring a renewed focus on strategic planning to the Northern Territory. One that enables sustainable growth of our cities and towns as great places to live and ensures that planning reflects the expectations of our community, especially our young people, to develop strategic plans to cater for growth, facilitate infill development and urban renewal through planning controls, and address housing affordability. To do that, we have to cut a lot of red tape.
The government has restructured the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment to implement an improved parallel process for land rezoning and development assessment. Essentially, this means rezoning and subdivision can happen at the same time which significantly speeds up the approval process, ensuring development happens faster. The faster we get it to happen, the less pressure there is on supply, and we can try to contain some of the costs of housing in the Territory, especially for young Territorians.
Let us talk about land release. As I said, Labor failed to release enough land to keep up with demand, and that is why the prices are so high. As a government, we are undertaking an audit of all government-owned land across the Northern Territory and have identified sufficient land for in excess of 3000 dwellings. I find it difficult to believe that since 2008, when we were in opposition, trying to get the government to look at all available options, they did not comb through the Lands department and find this. When we got into government, it was obvious we should go through and find out what was out there. We combed through and have come up with this. This happened a while ago. We are now putting things in place to get this land released.
In Darwin there have been 23 sites identified for a possible 1800 homes. In Katherine we have identified 10 sites for a possible 640 homes; in Tennant Creek, eight sites for a possible 13 homes; and in Alice Springs nine sites for a possible 115 homes. We have been pushing to get the first 20 sites turned off before the end of this year. We are fast-tracking new subdivisions in Palmerston East, Katherine East, and in Kilgariff. The previous government had 11 years to comb through and find those blocks because these are not greenfield sites, these are sites that already have services running past the door. How do you miss that?
Let us look at public housing. Labor were the slumlords of public housing. They let public assets go to ruin, like Moil Crescent. They just let them go and did not bother doing anything about them. Labor let waiting lists get out of control; they got longer under Labor because they failed to manage tenancy properties and build enough new stock.
The Country Liberal government is taking a responsible approach and redeveloping our public housing stock. We are working on redeveloping large complexes …
Ms Walker: I love the way you are praising SIHIP for 953 houses and 1800 Indigenous employment places.
Mr STYLES: You do not want to go to SIHIP, member for Nhulunbuy.
Ms FINOCCHIARO: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I seek an extension of time for the member, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STYLES: It is interesting that they try to distract speakers in this House because they are ashamed of their record.
We are about redeveloping large complexes. I will go to SIHIP soon, because that was a disgrace under the former ALP government. What an absolute mess that was. The houses costing an fortune, cost overruns, $145m for consultation. What a joke. But anyway, I digress.
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Clearly the minister has not seen the media release by his colleague saying it is a fantastic program.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order, sit down. You have the call, minister.
Ms Walker: 953 houses, 1800 Indigenous people trained.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Nhulunbuy.
Mr STYLES: That is because we got on with it and cleaned up your mess. That is what we have done.
We are working to reduce concentrations of disadvantage. We will be encouraging community renewal through a better mix of housing types and affordable housing opportunities that meet current and future housing requirements. We will provide better housing for our senior populations and give the member for Nelson a pile of alternatives for rural seniors accommodation. We will build strong and integrated communities, including environmentally sensitive design standards, and get the best value for government assets by working in partnership with the private sector.
Let us go on to remote housing, my favourite subject apparently. Under the National Partnership Agreement for Remote Indigenous Housing, the department achieved its targets of 934 new houses and 2915 refurbishments and rebuilds under challenging circumstances. The challenging circumstances are the mess and cost overruns the ALP government left for us, but we have taken the game and we have got on with it. We have fixed many of those problems, and we are still fixing them. This has come at a cost. We remain concerned that more houses could have been built or fixed had better planning and delivery methodologies been applied.
Mr Chandler: Bring up AMS.
Mr STYLES: Do not go to the Asset Management System: a $14m project that is going to cost $70m. Let us talk about the wave pool. How many millions of dollars of overrun did that have? It is just another example of the pathetic planning and the lack of attention the previous government paid to not just this but so many other projects it had under its control. This project failed in the beginning due to the incompetent Labor governments in both the Territory and Canberra, and we are now playing catch up. I am glad they have raised it.
The Territory has 16 of the nation’s remote service delivery priority sites, 73 communities and Alice Springs and Tennant Creek town camps to service, covering about 5000 dwellings and up to 40 000 remote Indigenous tenants.
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Relevance: 113. I ask the minister to table the document he is reading from.
Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. It is not relevant, either.
Mr STYLES: Thank you, Madam Speaker. We have delivered at around treble the pace of Western Australia and Queensland. We will be lobbying for governance arrangements to revert to those in place with other jurisdictions, and for responsibility of the program management to rest with the Northern Territory for the remainder of this program.
We will ensure there are alternative delivery models in place which will reduce overhead costs, maximise local employment and community engagement, and increase the actual spending on construction and refurbishment.
It is timely to remind the members opposite that it is their mates in Canberra who will not allow us to change some of the designs in the Territory that would see anything up to 80% to 85% Aboriginal labour component in the construction of these homes. There are a number of systems that can do that. I do not think Labor ever looked at it. When they were in government and they had their mates in government in Canberra, perhaps they could have done a deal. Their mates in Canberra will not even talk to us about delivering more houses with a greater involvement of Aboriginal people. That is an appalling situation. The members in opposition, especially those who were ministers in the previous government, could have had an opportunity to do that.
We are focused on improving opportunities for local Indigenous business enterprises, and there are some very good local Indigenous enterprises. Job opportunities for Aboriginal people at the local level are essential to addressing disadvantage and improving the livelihood of Indigenous people living in communities.
I get on to Real Housing for Growth, a truly innovative project. I congratulate my colleague, the member for Brennan, the Minister for Housing. With Real Housing for Growth we will deliver an additional 2000 new affordable homes throughout the Northern Territory over the next four years. That is probably more than these people delivered in total.
This project is attractive to developers and investors, and will also meet the needs of Territory renters. Property owners will have rent guarantees secured through 10-year head leases from the government. Renters will only pay 70% of the market rent, with the government meeting the difference. Currently, the government is finalising negotiations for over 150 new homes in the Darwin area, approximately 170 new homes in Palmerston, 60 at Coolalinga, and a further 50 for Tennant Creek and Katherine.
This government is about giving some of these people who struggle a real opportunity to get into affordable accommodation. We are on track to deliver over 3000 blocks of land so we can build homes, units, and duplexes and all the other things the opposition is calling for, especially the member for Nelson. He is also asking for more in the rural area. We will have some at Coolalinga which will meet some of the demand in that area.
We have struggled to overcome some of the legacies left to us by the previous ALP government. Not only have we been left with a $5.5bn debt to deal with, and trying to get our spending down to what we earn, we have been struggling to understand how they got into the messes we were left with. How did the former government get to that point? Who was responsible for getting it to that point? Today I do not have time left to go into that. If I pressed that button we could be here all night talking about what was and was not done to fix some of the problems we face today.
Madam Speaker, I can assure you the CLP government cares about people in the bush and we will be looking at every opportunity and option we can to not only get houses built in the bush but to involve local people, to not only get people housed in our town areas but also in our rural and remote areas. We will attempt to get the show on the road as soon as we can.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I rise to critique the minister’s statement. There have been so many statements. It has been interesting to see them coming on in these sittings, one after another. A statement is a good opportunity to debate policy with the government. Now, as an opposition member, I have a different way of doing things and I want to debate that way with the government which has the numbers to do whatever they like. I will refrain from reading the minister’s statement back to him and will critique the statement.
The statements, I have noticed over the past couple of days, are highly politicised with less input from the public sector. The language and sentiments are all about failures, and victim and blame rhetoric. They are obviously not coming from hard-working public sector employees but from political advisors.
That is okay, but it is not really providing the opportunity to sell the government message. It is not providing the opportunity to tell the Territory exactly what this new government is doing. When I say ‘new government’, I use it liberally because you guys will have your first birthday cake in a matter of days. That means 12 months in government, but we still have rhetoric about blame and, ‘We cannot do this, we cannot do that’. We say, ‘Tell us what you can do’, but that does not appear in these statements either.
We are talking about the blame game but we are not seeing anything new. We will talk about the members putting on the public record their hard-earned facts about Labor refusing to release land and blah, blah, blah! Territorians know the truth because they have been living in the Territory. The previous government was on a plan, working through a process, then an election changed all that. But it did not all change. The 2000 units were approved for the CBD when the previous government went to the finance sector and convinced southern bankers that Darwin and Palmerston were different kettles of fish. When money started to be released, when the presale commitments were reduced, when the developer had the cash, then the cranes appeared on the skyline, and the average Territorian knows that. Tell us about that! I am interested to see that roll-out and to see what is new.
When we talk about the 4000 lots of land in the pipeline, that is the reality. This government has inherited 4000 lots in the pipeline, but they crashed that plan and policy. They changed it to what they want to do. That is what new governments do, but there was a pipeline. The plan was there and the process was under way, but the 2012 election came along and the game changed considerably.
When we talk about the Darwin CBD, Palmerston, Palmerston East, the University land and the CIC/CDU partnership, the private sector in Muirhead and Coolalinga, Katherine, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs, Mount Johns Valley, Larapinta, the new drive-in site, the Melanka site, we look at what was happening. Now the new minister is in the saddle. Does he have a brumby or a thoroughbred? This is the question because the challenge with Melanka in Alice Springs - there is a private development, you guys are into private developments, how are you going to support that?
As the previous minister, I was conducting the debate around the Alice Springs CBD, raising the height levels. I congratulate the Chief Minister for continuing that debate in his home town, because, as a government, you need to drive initiatives to get these developments to step out of the ground. I want to see a statement that tells me what you are doing about that. I want to read and debate new initiatives, but I am just getting infill of cellulose listed on paper that is not really moving the debate forward. We are stuck.
If the minister wants to be a grown up, bring it on and let us hear what you are doing. Let us hear about lot numbers, minister. I encourage you, as I have before, to look at affordability. You are in an exciting portfolio and should travel and research, but most of that work has been done. It is in the department, and the greater Darwin plan is there. I know you are using it, and so you should. It is good work, done by the public sector. Now you have the exciting opportunity to roll it out and deliver for Territorians. Do not be frightened to push all the levers.
This is where I will debate with the member for Nelson. Look at smaller lot sizes, at alternative housing design, at the principles of modern urbanism, at car parking spaces in unit developments. Look at all those initiatives that can be applied to the Northern Territory to deliver affordability.
I was pushing in, and the department has this on record because they do the work, about housing materials. The member for Sanderson talked about different styles and materials in the bush. Let us hear about them. Let us debate rammed earth products in remote communities and hear about tilt slabs in remote communities. Let us debate it, but not go around in circles with this same old rhetoric, the blame and somebody is at fault and the rest of it. We want to hear something new.
You are a new government, rise to the occasion, grow up, and give us all these ideas. Tell the Territory the story, and feel good about it because I remember what it was like. By jingo, it was an exciting job, and the day could be coming when I might have it back. I am doing the best I can, do not worry about that!
We look at this statement and talk about the political rhetoric clouding a good opportunity to tell a story. The minister wants to give me the big slap about the Tennant Creek land use framework plan sitting around gathering dust. What a lot of rot! The dust was on my boots, mate, and the work you will see in the department was rolling out, not only the Tennant Creek plan, where we had done heaps of work, but the Katherine plan and all the plans for the growth towns. In Angurugu and Umbakumba you start to see that transition from area plans to land use plans; starting to normalise development so everything can come together.
What I loved about that work, when I used to go to the department regularly and see it rolling out, was there was no dust, there were people who were frantic. There was so much work going on in that department, planning for the Territory. There were special things like ceremonial grounds on an area plan. I had never seen that before. I discussed it with my colleagues. I knew what a ceremonial ground was, then I talked to architects, engineers, and urban planners. I said, ‘Check this out, this is the Territory’, and they were thrilled. That was work.
Your minister wants to slap me. The minister’s big scoring punch, ‘Tennant Creek land use plan had dust on it’. What a load of rot! It was part of the process that is still going on and the work that is being conducted. I hope you continue that work, including duplicating Brown Street to create the new industrial area of Tennant Creek, instead of the two blocks you mentioned at estimates. I know the two blocks you are talking about and you have problems with that machinery being located there. That contractor is going broke because there is no work. They want to be able to create that subdivision. You can do very innovative things, minister, and I encourage you to continue on that road to be innovative and come into this House and tell me the story.
The land use plans, the greater Darwin plan, the growth town plans were all rolling out. Then the August 2012 election changed that game. And did it what! You remind me regularly about that. That is life and the people decided. However, in a democracy there is always the chance of a comeback.
The minister entered into some good debate. ‘The priorities of the Planning Commission are’, then it was the focus of infill. You have considerably changed the game. You are going hand-in-hand with the private sector. That is a policy, let us debate it. Let us debate working with the private sector, because when you are releasing Crown land and really getting into investing in headworks infrastructure, you are trying to keep down the price of a serviced lot of land. You are spending taxpayers’ money on taxpayers’ land to reduce the cost of a serviced lot of land. That is government’s job and responsibility.
When you jump in with the private sector and start to use taxpayers’ money to make the private sector more money, then taxpayers will have something to say because there is a big difference. If a developer is going to make megabucks and I tell them I am going to use taxpayers’ money to help get this out of the ground, to ensure it is fast-tracked to deliver my political rhetoric, then the taxpayer will say, ‘Hang on a minute, this is the private sector here. They are going to make big profits’. We have to be careful about how much taxpayers’ money you give to the private sector to make their own money, which they put in their own bank account.
This will be interesting to watch. This is something new. We worked with private developers as well. But when private developers came to me and said, ‘Government should build the water main that will cost $5.8m to support my development’, as a new minister, I took that to government and said, ‘Hey, if we build this developer’s water main for $5.8m to get this industrial land out quicker, it will be a great outcome’. Government said to me, ‘Well, pull up, minister, you are new in the game. Go back and have a think about this. That is a private developer, the water main is worth $5.8m, taxpayers cannot contribute to that water main purely for that private developer. But, if we can integrate that water main into other areas of development, specifically Crown land, then we can work together.’
You guys are going down this road. It is an interesting road. It focuses on infill development. You are targeting serviced lots of land, but remember they are owned by the private sector and we want to know how much taxpayers’ money you will be investing in the private sector. Then, unfortunately, because you have a bit of skin in the game, as the Chief Minister likes to say, we will be watching your mates very carefully. We will be watching jobs for the boys and doing deals with your mates very carefully, because that is what an opposition does, as that is how democracy works. Let us hope, we have good stories coming back and there is no more of this clouded grey area that causes confusion in the democracy.
The minister talked about the Enquiry by Design process and basically slagged it off. I am disappointed because I know the member for Nelson participated in that and there were scores of Territorians, not only in Darwin, but also in Alice Springs. We did the design of Kilgariff and set the suburb up through the inquiry by design process, which is a principle of new modern urbanism that brings the people along with you. It is not like that report I was reading from today that said Aboriginal people do not like to be consulted after the decision is made. Guess what? Constituents do not like to be consulted after the development has been approved. They like to go with the process, and that is what inquiry by design delivers. If you look at all the work that was done for Weddell, that is a really good example of the principles of modern urbanism. The Alice Springs cohort reported back the same as the Darwin and Palmerston cohort. ‘This is the new way to go; we like it.’ Guess what? You get creative new ideas that we brought into this House to debate, stuff I want to hear from you.
I am really disappointed that the minister has used this statement to cloud it with political rhetoric to slag off what is an innovative process, and by the way is being used in all the other jurisdictions around the country. Because you will find very soon that if you go stomping around in a planning area and upset constituents, then you will pay dearly at the ballot box, because urban planning is about including everyone.
The statement talks about the lots, not quite lot numbers. It talks about Tennant Creek: 8 sites, 13 dwellings. Minister, I am sorry but yesterday in Question Time you got a little hot under the collar when I was challenging you and you spat out all these numbers. From the Hansard record from yesterday, you said there were about 20 units in Tennant and ‘… another site in Tennant Creek but I cannot talk about at the moment’. In the statement today, there are only 13 in Tennant Creek. I am not quite sure what happened, but we will probably have that cleared up. You could clear that up in an adjournment debate because there is a discrepancy. Maybe it was the heat of Question Time or your burning ambition to slap me and try to make a fool of me because I am a bad communist. We can live with that on this side. Let us get it right, because I have to tell this story to the people at Tennant Creek and the Barkly. Is it 20 or is it 13? We will work that out; I am hoping you will be able to clear it up.
I do like the story of, ‘I cannot tell you about the other lot of land’. I bet your bottom dollar it is the old drive-in site. That is a classic example of a privately-owned lot of land. The owner of that land wanted it developed, and I wanted it developed because I was doing 54 lots of land on the other side of the road that sold in two land releases, straight up. Now there are multiple dwellings going up. We have single dwellings, and a subdivision emerging in Tennant Creek, the first land release in 30 years.
I wanted to help that private developer of the block over the road. However, I got bogged down because he wanted taxpayers’ money to put on headworks services. He said, ‘If you give me the money’ – government money, taxpayers’ money – ‘we can fast-track this and get it out of the ground and everything will be apples’. Unfortunately, I had to say, ‘Sorry, I cannot do that. I cannot spend taxpayers’ money on that private land to support your profits, but let us continue to talk about what we can do.’
You guys are going down this road. The minister has some secretive block he cannot talk about. I put on the public record that I bet you it is the old drive-in site. I hope to see that site developed. It is a great opportunity for Tennant Creek. As the opposition, we will be watching very closely how this minister does it because we are accountable to all taxpayers in the Northern Territory.
The minister talked about Berrimah Farm, which I support. I want to hear more about Berrimah Farm. That will be a golden opportunity and will be very good land. I agree with the member for Nelson; there has to be a mixed mode development there. There has to be some commercial and some residential.
What the minister forgot to mention in this statement was Mitchell, the suburb which runs parallel with Zuccoli. The minister knows about Zuccoli because the previous government master-planned it, and set up Stage One. I congratulated the minister for appropriating $20m of taxpayers’ money for Crown land at Zuccoli to partner up with a developer to deliver the best possible price for land and get the industry stimulated and moving along at Zuccoli. The suburb in parallel is Mitchell, which has amazing opportunities, once again, to deliver land.
It does not appear in the statement. I do not know why. If you had knocked out a couple of those paragraphs that were simply put in to try to score political points and slap that bad little communist from Barkly, then maybe you could have talked about Mitchell. Mitchell will have some constraints near the mouth of the creek. What we were doing - you have the plan and probably know all about this; I hope you do but you did not tell us. There were going to be larger lots.
Lynne, I am enjoying myself so much and the minister is back, I should continue ...
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request an extension of time for my colleague.
Motion agreed to.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, colleagues on this side. I am sorry I am not so welcome on the other side, but this is a House of debate.
The suburb of Mitchell has some very interesting challenges which are all about biting insects and drainage, and the Friends of Mitchell Creek, a community group which is very active in this space. These are the stakeholders and community representatives I talk about. This is the inquiry by design process, the process of inclusion where you get the best results and avoid a lot of grief, minister. You avoid a lot of grief if you take the people with you. Mitchell is a very good opportunity for some innovative lands planning and development. Take the stakeholders with you.
In the constrained land around biting insects and with the drainage issues you obviously have to go to larger lots. Look at alternative products and opportunities for housing there, and look at some medium-density housing further up in the better areas. Look at that more rural style down into more of the constrained land, and bring the story back and tell us about it. Let us hear about the new suburb of Mitchell. Let us see budget appropriations for the new suburb of Mitchell, because that leads me to Weddell.
There was very little use in government investing in a subdivision which would grow weeds. The greater Darwin plan spells it out very carefully. There are great demographics, great maps, great urban planning principles exposed there, but it says the capacity of Palmerston East will be taken up over the next five to 10 years.
Weddell has to be started well before that. That is why we put a target on getting into Weddell of 2014-15. In 2014 you would be at the Cabinet table seriously boxing on with the Treasurer to get the funds to start the real dirt kicking at Weddell. In the meantime, Palmerston East will fill to capacity. When that capacity is taken up, you have a new area with a capacity of 3000 more lots ready to roll.
The minister, during estimates, told me, ‘I do not like that plan. I am going out the other way. I am going to Glyde Point.’ I said, ‘Minister, why go to Glyde Point when you are appropriating $15m to complete what Labor started?’ It was a Labor commitment to get the headworks infrastructure into the Middle Arm peninsula, which goes right past the new inquiry by design master plan suburb of Weddell. It is not a suburb minister, it is a city. It will be a new city, but we will continue to have that debate.
There was no mention of Mitchell, or capacity in Palmerston East, or mention of the rural village plans you have under your brief. Of course, there was no mention of Weddell.
There was a paragraph in the statement, minister, which concerned me. It said the government has restructured the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment. You certainly did, but what saddened me was you guys sacked some of the best intellect in the Territory in the area of lands, planning and delivering modern urbanism. Those guys were rolling out the door on almost the first day you took over. It really saddened me. It was all about cost cutting, trying to save money, changing the game and getting your values into it. It was sad to see the intellectual capital that went out the door.
The minister talked about dusty land use plans he found. That is a lot of rot. He read it because a political advisor wrote it. That intellectual capital were some of the most advanced thinkers in Territory lands, panning and environment that I ever had the opportunity to work with. You have lost a lot of dynamics in that department, and you will need to look at ensuring you renew that through your policy.
Tell us about the Planning Commission. Give us more information in this House about the Planning Commission and the work it is doing. Give me your classic one-liner, ‘Seek a briefing’. Certainly, minister. I live 1100 km away and I am travelling through every electorate I can, telling stories about all of you. As soon as I can get back to this wonderful capital, I would like a briefing and to pace with you, and support you where I can, in relation to the Planning Commission.
Two last things, minister. Kilgariff, the rubbish written in the statement is quite embarrassing, but let us talk real. Let us talk man to man about Kilgariff because the last time I was there it still had the traffic barrier and there was nothing happening. You know you have hit the wall because you have major challenges. We talked about Melanka, the drive-in site and Mount Johns Valley. These places are ready to roll as well. In Kilgariff you found out the hard way that it is now about attracting a developer and working with them to deliver affordable land.
When I was in the process of working on developing Kilgariff, we put in approximately $18m by the end of the spend in setting up what you now have as your little portfolio - all the headworks this statement tells me you are putting in.
When we got to that stage, it was the now Chief Minister who was slagging me off in media and running me down every chance he got because he is good at that. He was saying, ‘This guy does not know what he is doing. It is going to be $250 000, $350 000 a lot at Kilgariff.’ He ran me down to the ground, barked and carried on, and everybody picked up on it. The conversation went around and around and I said, ‘Pull up, slow down. We have not even engaged a developer yet.’ This is where you will go into those areas of housing affordability, creative products, new innovations, and different building materials. It was all done under the inquiry by design process.
Do not lose that corporate knowledge and those values that were Alice Springs Territorian values. Do not lose the kudos we built up with the residents of the rural area in Alice Springs and the environmental and greens groups, because it is not easy trust to get back. When you rubbish inquiry by design, remember there are some very important elements there. I look forward to hearing about Kilgariff. I go past regularly and I am looking forward to seeing some dirt turning at Kilgariff.
The statement is silent about housing on remote homelands and outstations. The member for Namatjira will jump in this debate to update the House on home ownership and Homelands Extra. We are really looking forward to that because it sits with the principle of what the opposition is all about. We are a good team, a Labor family, well referenced, we do our research, and present clear policy alternatives. We want to hear from the member for Namatjira. No doubt, she is collecting her notes out the back or in her office. We would love to hear from the member for Namatjira about what is happening in homelands and outstations. The member for Nelson touched on it, but we want to hear it from the member for Namatjira. I look forward to that, as will my colleagues on this side of the House.
The minister and the member for Sanderson talked about a very important point: engaging local communities in the work. I was at Ramingining the other day and 27 houses are being built. A barge landing road is being built. The place will be flat out. That little remote town will be turned inside out. I was racing around the town for two days asking, ‘Who has a job? Who will be working on the roads? Who will be building the houses?’ They are talking about it. Do not let them off the hook, minister. Minister for Construction, do not forget them. That will be sensational. It was all done, ready to roll; it is signed, sealed and delivered and now we have to get the locals involved. When the locals are involved in real jobs and wages, it will deliver real outcomes. I want to hear that story. You can tell us all about it in your next statement. Thanks for the opportunity of making comment.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Mr Deputy Speaker, by crikey, that is going to be a hard act to follow.
I thank the Minister for Housing for his statement. I speak in support of this government’s integrated approach to housing affordability. I touched this morning on the urgent state of housing in my electorate of Katherine: urgent because of the lack of planning by the former Labor government. We have the pressures of agriculture and horticultural industry expansion, additional Defence Force facilities at Tindal, major projects such as Mount Todd, Western Desert Resources and Sherwin Iron, mines such as the Australian Ilmenite Resources and the Maude Creek project. All will see Katherine as a major supply hub.
Land release and housing issues have been a constant problem in Katherine for many years. No planning was done by the former government. I will put that in context. There was a lot of planning done for the growth of housing and land release in Katherine. It was done, not by the former government, but by the government before: the CLP government. In those early years, the CLP produced a number of Katherine planning documents and identified and released Katherine East.
Katherine East was put together many years ago as a result of the need for Katherine to grow. Sadly, even though there was land made available through the Katherine East subdivision, and all the native title clearances were done, there was very little done by the former Labor government to continue with the program of land release to allow Katherine to continue to grow. I said this morning that the former Labor government had allowed Katherine to stagnate. That is true.
We promoted the need for careful thought and strategy when we launched the 2010 Planning for Greater Darwin discussion paper, with the comment that regional land use plans were urgently required for all our major centres. Nothing was done by the former government. A year ago we won government. Within five months, the legislation was in place and the Planning Commission was established. By mid-year, the 78-page consultation paper towards a Katherine land use plan had been launched.
The feedback from our four community forums is being collated as I speak. I am very pleased to advise the House that I made a number of submissions to the Planning Commission, directly to the Chairperson, Gary Nairn, about some of the issues I thought were critically important for Katherine and should be considered beyond this consultation paper.
Those submissions that came in from the forums are being summarised. I understand that the final draft land use plan will be with the minister by the end of October. I take the time now to pay credit to the Planning Commissioner and the Planning Commission for the work being done to further the growth of land and housing in the Katherine region, in consideration of all the issues that will affect our growth into the future.
This approach could not be more different from that of the former Labor government which was notorious for delaying development to match economic growth with housing and overlooking the needs of projects to be matched by residential choice and affordability of housing. Instead, they actively caused delays, developments were affected by changed rules and now they have the gall to claim that within one year of government, new homes should have been provided.
Their naivety is astonishing. The whole process from plans to DCA, from approvals to securing financing, from pre-sales to completion of construction, can take five years. I believe I mentioned that earlier today. If they were serious about affordable housing in 2013, they would and should have ensured that projects happened. But only now do we see cranes back on the skyline because of this government’s efforts to support the growth of housing and release of land in the Northern Territory.
Housing and land sales are vital elements to support economic development and population growth. The Territory has a history and reputation of being a drawcard destination for workers with high levels of workforce participation of nearly 75% for all workers, almost 80% for men, and 10 percentage points above the national average. Combine that with our trend in unemployment rates, which has historically been much lower than our competitors interstate. These conditions have generally delivered structurally higher wages and higher expenses than other places like Tasmania, which has been an economic backwater for years due to poor Labor government policies, and South Australia, which has suffered as well.
In the Territory, the demand for workers has been strong in the last few years of the mining boom. It has always been strong for Territory and Commonwealth Public Servants, and it will continue to be strong under this government as our policies around the key economic drivers come into effect. That is where the growth needs to come from: the government policy settings around key economic drivers which provide for businesses to grow and expand and for people to become further employed.
The previous Labor government failed to alleviate or address these pressures and, most critically, failed to invest in our stock of affordable public housing. When dealing with the private market, the previous government decided it would add fuel to the fire of the cost of owning a home. It implemented and supported, well past their viability, home ownership schemes that created excessive demand without adequate supply.
One of the first issues brought forward by the Territory Treasury was regarding house prices. When we sought advice about appropriate strategies to move on within the December mini-budget of last year, was the fact that government was effectively cross-subsidising some home owners to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars in interest payments, and upwards of hundreds of thousands of dollars in capital. This was seen by us as unsustainable when we had public housing projects in disrepair, a declining public housing stock, waiting lists stretching, and a budget deficit and debt blow out.
The dilemma is how to help those in genuine need afford their own home or simply to be able to rent accommodation, while, on the other hand, managing programs designed to help people who needed a hand into housing. They did that, but at the same time they pushed up the price of houses.
The question of housing affordability needed a multipronged attack. Firstly, the blockages to future housing supply, starting on the longest lead time project with the utmost priority. Land release was derailed by the former Labor government, causing critical shortage. Projects were announced, but never delivered. As the Housing minister said previously, we committed to an audit of all government-owned land across the Northern Territory, so far identifying sufficient land for in excess of 3000 dwellings. I have no idea why the former government never went down that path. Their laziness and ineptitude are on display for all to see.
Darwin, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs are all to be beneficiaries of this plan to unlock land. We are pushing to get the first 20 sites. Not 20 blocks, but 20 sites that are a part of delivering those 3000 dwellings and getting them turned off before the end of the year. We are finalising negotiations for over 150 new homes in the Darwin area, over 170 new homes in Palmerston, 60 at Coolalinga, and a further 50 for Tennant Creek and Katherine.
Next was addressing the pressure on housing costs. We rolled back the excessively generous terms of the previous government’s assistance package and brought in much tighter controls which focus on supporting new construction, rather than funding the purchase and sale of existing housing stock at ever increasing prices.
Having an affordable housing strategy that claimed that a house costing $750 000 was an affordable home was not just a joke, it was an affront to all Territorians. Our HomeBuild Access provides two loan packages: a low deposit loan and a subsidised interest loan. Purchase price limits Territory-wide are $550 000 for homes with three or more bedrooms and $475 000 for homes with one or two bedrooms. It replaced two previous NT government loan schemes: My New Home, and HOMESTART Extra. HomeBuild Access is a fiscally responsible loan package, ‘fiscally responsible’ being the operative words. It does not require the Territory to enter into excessive borrowings to deliver. It stimulates new supply at a more affordable level, thereby lessening market pressure for rentals. It minimises market distortions and is least cost to government and Territory taxpayers, with lower subsidies provided only to those in need for a limited period of time.
Supply of affordable homes at a rate the market can absorb is the key to stable, long-term prices and growing residential capacity. It is also the pause to allow wages to catch up to rents and for average rents to stabilise, even retreat as other more affordable options come onto the market like unit developments and densification. It has just taken time and some political will.
We have seen what happens when poorly-focused governments take on housing projects, like what happened with the remote Indigenous housing program. The project failed in the beginning due to incompetent Labor governments in both the Territory and Canberra, and we are now playing catch up.
Our government is spending on improved housing standards by monitoring the construction of new housing and existing dwelling refurbishments in town camps. We are committed to refurbishing and redeveloping public housing stock so we maintain the underlying safety net for the most disadvantaged: those who cannot get on the property ownership ladder, and especially those who cannot compete for rental accommodation in the commercial market. In doing the best for our most disadvantaged, we are ensuring the system is fair by working with those people occupying public housing on terms and conditions that today would make them ineligible for public support.
As part of the December 2012 mini budget, it was announced that ineligible urban public housing tenants would be required to pay Australian Valuation Office assessed market rents, or 30% of income, from 1 July 2013. Ineligible tenants had been paying an artificially low public housing rent as a result of a 2006 decision to cap market rent increases to $20 per year. This effectively meant that, in many instances, ineligible tenants were paying a lower proportion of their income in rent to Territory Housing than eligible tenants. Go figure. It also resulted in a loss of valuable income needed to support repairs and maintenance of public housing dwellings.
We are attacking the long-term cost of housing by ensuring the release of land stocks and increased housing construction that meets population growth. We have wound back programs that are fiscally irresponsible and contributed to the surge in house prices.
We are not supporting schemes that say a $750 000 house is affordable, but we are supporting new home construction. We are delivering on public housing investment and ensuring those on the waiting list are not being kept out because of unfair allocation of housing stock. We are delivering on affordable housing, and I thank the minister for his statement.
Ms LEE (Arnhem): Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to make a few statements and highlight a number of points on remote housing as they affect my constituents in the seat of Arnhem.
First, the priorities of the Planning Commission need to reflect strategic planning for remote housing and infrastructure as a major priority.
Second, there needs to be a public inquiry into the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing. We need an investigation into the costs associated with this program, and its outcome and targets need to be the subject of that investigation: an investigation that is open and transparent to the people of Australia, particularly to the Indigenous people of the Northern Territory.
What needs to be the focus of our government in the NT with respect to remote strategic planning and infrastructure development is to make it clear how remote disadvantage will be tackled with practical explanations to achieve the desired outcomes.
Expenditure on Indigenous remote programs needs to be oversighted by an independent body reporting back to government about the money trail.
Indigenous affairs has always been an industrial affair for others, meaning employment and business opportunities. No matter which area of public life you look at, whether it is education, health or other service delivery issues, the matters and the list goes on. In this case, housing and infrastructure development has been a free-for-all. The intended recipients, the Indigenous people of the Northern Territory, have largely been ripped off, which ultimately deceives the Australian people about taxpayers’ money being used for these purposes.
The significant amount of public funds poured into Indigenous disadvantage does not get down to the ground in order to make a real difference. It has to stop, and public accountability needs to be the focus. No comparable public expenditure program could possibly get away with financial abuse of administration of this magnitude.
I am happy to see we are cutting red tape for planning purposes to speed up development of land. This will have a positive effect on the development of remote communities as we move forward to town leases. I am also happy to see a focus on improving opportunities for local Indigenous business enterprises and employment of local Indigenous people through this program. Job opportunities for Indigenous people at a local level are essential to addressing disadvantage and improving the livelihood of Indigenous people living in communities.
I am happy to see the home buying incentives and how these would apply to Indigenous people who wish to purchase their own home. That is something Indigenous people have been talking about. The majority of them had to move into towns and regional centres because they can no longer live in communities or homelands and purchase their own home. That legislation needs to be looked at through the federal government. The Labor government has again, as it has many times in the past, let Indigenous people down on moving forward.
Mr Deputy Speaker, 12 years of neglect by the former Labor government of the Northern Territory - surprising no one is in here to listen to this - at last will be addressed. We still have a lot to do with respect to overcoming Indigenous disadvantage, but I am proud to say I am part of a new government that is showing it cares and is addressing these issues.
Mr CHANDLER (Housing): Mr Deputy Speaker, first, I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate. There will always be a difference in ideology in much of what we do. A lot of rhetoric has come from the opposition in regard to things they know a lot about, particularly in processes, and in listening to the former minister for Lands and Planning. He, of all people, knows how long it can take to get things done and get processes through.
What we have done in the past 12 months to achieve the number of changes and improvements within the department structures and our processes is remarkable. What we have achieved in Housing in the last 12 months is amazing. I truly appreciate the contributions from both sides of the House, because if you were to read Hansard at a later date, even through some of the rhetoric there are some good ideas. I will go back to a couple of points people have made.
The member for Nelson, Mr Wood, asked me to look at covenants. He is right in some regard; covenants have added, like another layer of bureaucracy does, additional costs to many developments across the Territory. With some, you can understand why you want to protect people’s investments, in other areas some of them are bizarre. It is something I am willing to look at.
Looking at the prison road, which the member for Nelson quite rightly pointed out - I took a tour around the Litchfield area with him. I also took a tour with Allan McKay, Mayor of Litchfield, along with the Planning Commissioner, Mr Gary Nairn, who has been doing a remarkable job since he has taken on the role.
For me, the Planning Commission provides that level of accountability. We are being accused from the Labor side that we do not seem to be open and accountable, and that we are just working with developers who are close friends or something like that. I feel sorry for the former minister. I get the impression he did not have any friends. That is something the Planning Commission can do for a government. It is like keeping things at a distance, just like we have an independent EPA today.
I have been accused again, by the former Labor government, that Bill was given the job because he was a mate of mine. I can honestly say with my hand on my heart that I had never met Bill Freeland before. He is doing a remarkable job within the Environment Protection Authority. They are turning the EPA into something truly independent of government, so much so that I can never tell him what to do. He does it his own way. It does not matter what I say, he will do it Bill’s way. In some regard that is what truly indicates to me that the EPA is independent from my hand and from this government, and that is what we really need to protect our environment.
In that walk around we did get some dust down our boots, member for Barkly. But around Litchfield we looked at a number of sites, industrial as well as potential housing development sites. We looked at the road along the prison and there are some good ideas. There are many areas that have potential there.
With the Humpty Doo Village Centre, I am happy to look at those areas. My understanding though, is there is a bit of constraint at the moment with the level of development around the Humpty Doo Village area. It would require some major infrastructure in regard to new water tank facilities. Of course, that can all be overcome. I have this philosophy that with every challenge there is opportunity and every problem can be solved some way or another. If you talk to enough engineers they will tell you just about anything can be solved.
The seniors village is a good idea. We can always do more for our seniors in the Northern Territory, to attract seniors and keep ours here, instead of them moving south.
The other thing the member for Nelson raised was Sports House. I will certainly talk with the minister for Sports, Mr Conlan, about badminton. Look at the oval at the back of Kurringal. Sports House is a remarkable piece of land and we have to be very careful how we leverage and use it. We are really working in that space at the moment.
I was disappointed, however, in the approach taken by the member for Barkly in the blame game. The reality is that it does get a bit tiring when you have missiles being fired from one side of this Chamber to the other. Through all of it, often there are some good ideas that come through. He mentioned the height levels around the CBD, and I am certainly interested in looking at the restrictions the mighty metres play.
Personally, I think the market should drive building heights. Building heights should not be driven by some piece of legislation, or whether it is a binding agreement somewhere of 90 m. I know it has background with Defence, but I am seeking to find where in the law it actually limits us from going beyond 90 m in the CBD. My vision for the CBD is that we look at reducing the footprints on every block but allow the market to dictate how high we go.
At the moment with land being so expensive, developers try to take up the entire footprint to get a return on their investment. I would rather see that footprint reduced and major gaps between buildings to allow a landscape, trees to be grown, thoroughfares, views to continue, breezes to pass through and cool our city. Also for pedestrians to have access, not just to walk around the streets, but between buildings and under trees that could be lit at night. You could transform this city, but you can only do it if you can give not only certainty, but also the ability for investors to receive return on their investment.
At the moment, they are taking up entire footprints and we will be left with concrete walls in front of us when there is a better way of doing it. I am glad the member for Barkly raised height level, no pun intended.
Smaller lot sizes, he is right again. You will always have arguments from certain sectors that think we should have 800 m blocks or 1000 m blocks across the Territory, and that we cannot have anything smaller than that. We have to position our houses at such an angle to get the prevailing breezes. In a perfect world, that would be a lovely thing to have, but the driving point with land is always how much people can afford.
The member for Barkly is right. I have to travel to learn in this job, and I took a trip recently to South Australia and across to Sydney where we were looking at houses built on 112 m. It is quite remarkable, and this was in view of Adelaide city. You could see Adelaide city in the distance, but the most exciting thing about those developments is people could be handed a set of keys for $260 000.
Given our rents in the Northern Territory, compared to what a mortgage would be with today’s low interest rates on $260 000, that is cheaper living. That is less than half the people in Darwin are paying for rents. Are we ready to go to 112 m? That is a debate we should be willing to have. We should not be afraid to have the debate. There will always be people who will not agree with that, but there will be people who want that lifestyle and that is the lifestyle they can afford.
The member for Nelson said people cannot play cricket in their back yard any more. Not everyone wants to play cricket in the back yard. They might want to use the local park. If we are looking at smaller lot sizes for developments, like we have seen in Adelaide, that can turn off a house and land package for $260 000, we have to be prepared to ensure the community around those properties is adequately serviced by decent parks and gardens, that the connectivity from one park to the next has decent pathways, lighting, playground equipment and all these things that could go into a well-planned development like the one I was looking at. In Sydney I saw similar developments. You can do it, and there will also be a market for it, but the market will always be what someone can afford. Not everyone can afford a $750 000 home.
I had the privilege today of looking at a penthouse at the top of the Mantra building - $2.5m worth. What an amazing view giving a different perspective of our city. Not many could afford that kind of lifestyle. I certainly cannot and probably never will, but some people can. There will be people like me who can afford the 112 m. I might choose that. I might not want to pick up palm fronds every weekend, mow lawns, lift bricks and do all those things, yet some people love it. We have to allow for the market. You love it?
Ms Finocchiaro: I do.
Mr CHANDLER: You love it. You have to allow the market to decide what people want. We need decent planning for that and we have to allow these things. Those smaller block sizes, to accommodate houses of around $260 000, are things we should not be afraid to debate.
We are not afraid to work with the private sector. In fact, given our fiscal position, it is nearly a requirement if we are to meet some of the obligations we have made to Territorians. We should not be afraid to do it. Private public partnerships have proven very successful in other areas, even with other government infrastructure, not just Housing.
I have seen some fantastic results of schools built in New South Wales and Queensland through public private partnerships. The member for Port Darwin has looked at an amazing school in Western Sydney: a great idea where principals do not spend half their life reporting damage to schools and getting maintenance done. They just call the contractor and the job is done. There are many advantages of a public private partnership. Governments do not have to spend all the taxpayers’ money in infrastructure up front. It can be done using different methods.
The former minister for Planning was right when he said we have picked up many things the previous government had been doing. There was some great planning that went on in the department and you do not throw that stuff out; you pick up and run with it. Just as the former Labor government, when they took over from the CLP did; it certainly was not the Labor government which built Palmerston, but it continued to grow Palmerston. Governments follow programs, and we will continue to do so now we have taken over the legacy left by the Labor Party. We will continue to grow Palmerston, but we have to look further. Weddell is not my immediate priority. Will Weddell happen? Absolutely, Weddell will happen. Will it be 15, 10, 20 years from now? It will happen.
Murrumujuk is another area that will go ahead, particularly if we to continue to focus on getting heavy industry away from our harbour and into a purpose-built facility where it can grow away from Darwin. We will need a city to support that. To say Weddell is a never never thing – no, Weddell will be there, just as further development into the future will be right around this harbour. We have to plan for it now.
You raise a second airport and people start to panic and think we will build another airport. We should be planning for it now, ensuring someone does not build a school in one of the flight paths. Now is the time to be putting that land aside.
Future freeways - I know the former minister was working on these as well. We have to plan, not just for the next three or four years, but for 10, 15, 20, 50 years from now, well beyond everyone in this parliament except for Lia. We should be doing things today that will matter to people 20 and 30 years from now. That is what good planning is about: getting the corridors in place for freeways, for future rail links and ports. All of those things that will occur in the future we should really be talking about now.
Yes, we will always argue that there is a level of rhetoric, spin, and argument put into statements like this, just as there was when the Labor Party held the Treasury benches. We, in opposition, attacked Labor. You get that, we get that; it is part of what happens. In all of it, there are usually some good ideas from both sides.
The thing I enjoy about Housing, particularly Lands and Planning – the former minister picked up on it – is it is exciting because you can see you can make a difference for the future of Territorians. When you talk with developers and hear some of their ideas, vision, and passion for the Territory, it blows you away. There are some exciting times ahead for the Northern Territory and, with good planning, we can make it happen.
The former minister spoke about the rhetoric in some of the documents and arguments. Perhaps we could spend some more time on the vision; however, with this paper today, we spelt out quite clearly what we had been working on, what we have achieved, and what will occur into the future. The future will involve public private partnerships, particularly the future vision I have with Housing.
Today we have a legacy of very old homes. We have to reach the stage where none of our Territory properties are over 10-15 years old to get rid of the high prices we pay for maintenance. This government is spending more on Territory Housing maintenance than any other government in history. Maintenance is expensive, but the younger the property, the less you will spend on maintenance. Let us start rolling over these old properties with the promise that any money made in that area is put into new properties. We cannot go backwards, we have to go forward.
If we have a constant rolling program then some of our older properties become the first homebuyers’ market. We are building new properties, lifting the standards of communities, taking control and giving some real benefits back to our community as far as ensuring people living in Territory Housing properties are living by the rules set by the community around them. There are expectations. Through the public safety officers, with the work of police and Territory Housing, we can lift the standards of people who choose to live in Territory Housing properties today. If we lift the standards of those houses and those people living within those houses, we make a better community.
There is a vision here. From time to time, the former minister is correct; we should be talking about or articulating better what those visions are, and the plans of how we are going to achieve them.
Madam Speaker, I thank everyone for their involvement. As I said, there is always rhetoric across this Chamber, but in that rhetoric there is often some very good information that comes forward. I have listened and I will be taking a lot of it with me.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have been approached by the member for Karama who wishes to make a personal statement. It is the convention that this is done in silence without interruptions or debate.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I seek to make a personal explanation in relation to the media release I issued on 21 August. On reflection, I accept that this media release was inappropriately expressed. I should not have attributed the Speaker’s decisions to the political party to which she belongs, nor should I have suggested her decisions as Speaker were politically motivated. It was not my intention to undermine, in any way, the integrity of parliament or the position of the Speaker, quite the opposite.
I have always accepted that it is my solemn duty as a member to uphold the integrity and respect for the Assembly and its Chair. In my 12 years in this House, I have always strived to do so. I respectfully suggest that any fair-minded assessment of my service as a member in the past would reach the same conclusion.
Accordingly, I unreservedly withdraw the statements in the media release and apologise to the House and to you, Madam Speaker, both in your official capacity and personally. I advise that I will be issuing a media release in these terms to the media outlets to whom I issued yesterday’s release.
Further, yesterday I used the word ‘embarrassment’ in relation to the Deputy Speaker. Again, I did not intend any offence and I unconditionally withdraw the statement and apologise to the Deputy Speaker.
That said, it is important that I explain the matters leading up to my ejection from parliament yesterday. The parliament was debating the Chief Minister’s gas to Gove statement, one of the most important issues facing the Northern Territory. Originally, I was going to be unable to speak to the statement as I was attending a prearranged meeting with the Chamber of Commerce in relation to gas to Gove. However, upon my return the debate had not finished, and I tried to speak but was prevented from doing so.
It is not unusual at all for members to speak without having provided prior notice. Indeed, a quick search of Hansard will show that the member for Port Darwin has uttered the phrase ‘I was not originally going to speak, but’, numerous times. Throughout the debate, the Deputy Chief Minister asked why I was not speaking to the debate and, through points of order, I indicated I was there to contribute to the debate.
It should be noted that the Chief Minister, immediately upon my ejection from parliament, indicated his desire for me to be allowed to speak, and adjourned the statement until a later date to allow me to speak.
We are fortunate to live in a country which recognises and upholds freedoms of fundamental importance for democracy such as the freedom of political speech. It is inevitable that in the heat of debate in the exercise of this freedom, mistakes such as the mistake I made yesterday will be made.
Having accepted this error and apologised for it, I trust we can now all move on and resume discharging the responsibility we all have to progress the important business of this House. Any other course not only risks distracting us from the discharge of our responsibilities to the Territory, but would run contrary to these fundamental constitutional freedoms.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Karama.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Land Resource Management): Madam Speaker, I table the Northern Territory’s Pastoral Land Board Annual Reports for the reporting periods 2010-11 and 2011-12. In the Northern Territory, the good health of our pastoral industry is pivotal to our economy. It is important for remote and regional jobs. It is the lifeblood of many remote communities and townships and is critical for a great many downstream businesses, such as trucking companies and export yards.
It is the job of the Pastoral Land Board to ensure the health, economic viability and sustainability of the Northern Territory’s pastoral lands in order for the pastoral industry to thrive. The Pastoral Land Board is, and I quote from their annual report:
As required under the Pastoral Land Act, the Pastoral Land Board is directed to report to me on the general condition of pastoral land and the operations of the board. However, these annual reports are well overdue to this parliament and me, as the relevant minister, even though I have been Minister for Land Resource Management for eight months. These reporting delays are a direct result of the inadequate resources provided by the previous government to allow the preparation of these important documents that tell us the health of the Northern Territory’s pastoral estate.
This is an industry that brings in over $285m directly, and around $600m indirectly to the Northern Territory’s economy every year. For the past eight years, the Northern Territory’s Pastoral Land Board has been systematically depleted of funding and resources to the point where it was simply unable to do the job for which it was appointed.
In both the reports tabled today, and in the previous reports, the board has expressed ongoing concerns that it is unable to report confidently to the minister and government on the status and condition of the Northern Territory’s pastoral estate due to insufficient monitoring being carried out. This is solely due to the decline in staff, funding and resources for the monitoring of the Territory’s pastoral estate under the regime of the former government.
Let me explain to members opposite the hugely important role the Pastoral Land Board plays. Because, clearly, despite their years in government, they did not take the time to find out what this statutory authority does.
In a nutshell, the Pastoral Land Board monitors the condition and use of pastoral land in accordance with the objectives of the Pastoral Land Act. The Territory’s pastoral land held as pastoral leases makes up around 45% of the Territory. Maintaining this natural resource in good condition is essential for a profitable and sustainable pastoral industry. The Pastoral Land Board is able to determine the health of our pastoral lands by undertaking monitoring on a cross section of properties throughout each pastoral district. However, the reduction in funding and resources saw the frequency of visits and output of land condition monitoring data for the pastoral estate become almost non-existent.
Pastoral properties were previously inspected on a three- to five-year rolling program, but this has fallen well behind schedule across the Territory. The number of pastoral property inspections declined to the extent where the 2011-12 monitoring sites assessed amounted to a paltry 11% of the number of sites assessed in 2007-08. In the 2011-12 annual report, the following outcome is continually repeated: no properties within the Darwin pastoral district were assessed under the monitoring program for 2011-12. No properties in the Katherine pastoral district were assessed during 2011-12. Again, no properties in the Roper pastoral district were assessed during 2011-12. It is not until we get to the VRD pastoral district that we see:
In the Sturt Plateau pastoral district and in the southern Alice Springs pastoral district, again, data collection was undertaken on just one property. What about the cattle stations in the Gulf and Barkly districts, and those around Tennant Creek?
Surely, these areas were monitored and assessed? But no. The funding and resource constraints placed on the Pastoral Land Board by the previous government were so restrictive that not a single station was able to be visited in these pastoral regions by a monitoring team.
Let me put this into context. In 2004-05, 86 properties throughout the Northern Territory were monitored, with a total of 774 monitoring sites. In that 12-month period, 37 new monitoring sites were established. Fast forward eight years under the previous government’s administration, and we had three properties, and a total of 52 sites assessed all together, with no new monitoring sites established.
For the benefit of those opposite, let me break that down for you. That is 83 fewer properties monitored and 722 fewer sites being assessed across our pastoral lands. As I said, monitoring and reporting on the condition of pastoral land is a key function of the Pastoral Land Board under the Pastoral Land Act.
Importantly, the board is also responsible for instigating remedial action to restore pastoral land condition. In the Northern Territory, maintaining natural pastures is a primary goal of sustainable pastoral management so the land can maintain productivity for future generations. That makes sense. However, for many years now the board has been concerned that the level of pastoral monitoring has decreased to an alarming level.
I have been advised that under the previous level of monitoring it was impossible for the Pastoral Land Board to provide an accurate assessment of land conditions throughout the pastoral estate. In fact, the situation grew so dire that the then Chairman of the Pastoral Land Board, Mr Anthony Young, wrote in the 2011-12 Annual Report that because of the lack of monitoring being undertaken, the board was:
It was their expert assessment that if this current level of monitoring was not increased it would be impossible to provide an accurate assessment of land conditions.
The decline in resources to deliver support and advice to landholders is highlighted in the fact that during 2012, when this government took office, the Department of Land Resource Management had only one dedicated field-based rangeland monitoring officer based in Katherine.
Another important aspect of the rangeland monitoring and inspection program is the updating of pastoral infrastructure maps. These are an important resource for government and lessees for the management and development of pastoral properties. However, the reduced number of property visits has also resulted in the infrequent updating of pastoral infrastructure mapping by government; therefore, impacting on pastoral management and development.
The rangeland monitoring, infrastructure, mapping, and regular lease inspections by departmental staff and the Pastoral Land Board was simply not a priority of the former government, which is clearly evident in these two annual reports.
As a direct result of the reduced resources, support, and staff in the rangeland monitoring program under the former government, some properties have not been revisited for up to 10 years. A lot can change in a pastoral property over 10 years. This not only leads to a loss of rapport and relationship with the property owners, but the loss of important information regarding change, land condition, and potential areas for development. This major decline in services has also been noted and commented on by the pastoral industry, an industry already suffering from the long-lasting impacts of federal Labor’s terrible decision to ban live cattle exports to Indonesia in 2011, and the recent below-average seasonal conditions.
Information and advice regarding land condition and management is imperative at this time to ensure the Territory’s resources are managed and developed sustainably and responsibly. Pastoralists and land managers require information and support to ensure the longevity and sustainability of the industry.
To reverse this downward trend in monitoring, this government has provided an extra $400 000 to the Department of Land Resource Management for the reinvigoration of the rangeland monitoring program. With this funding, the department has recruited additional staff members across Darwin, Katherine and Alice Springs regions to deliver support and service to pastoralists and undertake rangeland monitoring and property inspections. We now have a team of nine staff in the rangeland monitoring branch across the NT. The department has embarked on a hectic field schedule for 2013, focusing on properties in the Barkly and southern Alice Springs pastoral districts. Field staff are focused on ground data collection, property inspections, updating pastoral infrastructure and, most importantly, re-establishing relations and trust with the lessees and property managers across the NT.
We have also provided the Pastoral Land Board with an extra $100 000 so it can be administrated and operated effectively. This funding will enable the board to hold regular face-to-face meetings in regional centres, visit pastoralists and stakeholders, and carry out field trips to gather information required to process applications and report to government. In fact, the board has already held a meeting in Katherine and undertook inspections in that region earlier this year.
The difficulties faced by the Pastoral Land Board, due to insufficient monitoring, were not acknowledged by the former government which allowed rangeland monitoring and reporting to dwindle and deplete. These annual reports clearly highlight the former government’s lack of commitment to the growth and support of important industries in the Northern Territory. The under-resourcing by the former government resulted in both the department and the Pastoral Land Board being unable effectively manage 45% of the Northern Territory’s land mass, land that is held under pastoral tenure or for pastoral purposes.
The Country Liberals government is committed to the pastoral industry, an industry that is an important contributor to the NT economy. The Country Liberals government values the pastoral industry and is committed to ensuring its growth and success. The increased funding provided by the Country Liberals government will renew support to the pastoral industry through the provision of extension services with regard to pastoral land clearing applications, non-pastoral use applications, property inspections, reporting and more frequent property visits and infrastructure updates.
Funding for the Rangeland Monitoring Program will provide field support to the Pastoral Land Board to undertake field assessment and reporting for subdivisions, conversions to perpetuity, remedial and voluntary management plan inspections, and pastoral lease compliance inspections.
I look forward to tabling next year’s annual report which will show significant improvement in the monitoring and reporting of the Northern Territory’s pastoral land estate.
Madam Speaker, I table the 2010-11 and the 2011-12 Northern Territory Pastoral Land Board Annual Reports and seek leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Debate adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table two travel reports for the member for Daly, pursuant to Remuneration Tribunal Determination No 1 of 2012.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, tonight I wish to pay my condolences to the family of Lisa Ramsay, George Taylor and , constituents of mine who passed away in the tragic car accident on Girraween Road in Howard Springs on Friday 2 August 2013.
I would particularly like to pay my condolences and respect to Lisa’s parents, who are also constituents of mine, Barry and Robyn Ramsay. I had been out and about in my electorate just a week prior and had met and spoken to Robyn Ramsay and her two grandsons, including George, who has now sadly passed.
Lisa, like me, when she was younger, went to Gray Primary School, as did her brothers, Steven and Christopher. Her son, George, attended Gray Primary School as well. He followed in the family footsteps and the Gray Primary School newsletter said George had been a very happy young man who loved coming to preschool. I am sure he did.
Circumstances like this are deeply regrettable and only so much can be said about the loss of such young lives and what their contribution to our community could have been if this unfortunate incidence had not happened.
On behalf of the entire Drysdale community, particularly, the Gray community whose thoughts and prayers are with the family during this incredibly difficult time, we are thinking of you.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, on a train ride back to Alice, Grandad made friends with a boy his own age, Dinny Hogan, who was travelling with his aunt, Mrs Morton, to go to work on her station. This was a lucky friendship because Grandad did not pack enough food for a train that could only travel 20 miles per hour at its best, but often only at eight miles per hour. It was a long trip.
Mrs Morton, in feeding a second hungry boy, and with a shortage of labour on her station, offered employment to Grandad with her husband, William John ‘Nugget’ Morton, at Ammaroo Station. He accepted immediately, at which point she advised him a condition was parental approval, and a trip to his unsuspecting mum in Alice. Grandad was convinced that any decisions about him were his to make. This was ignored. His consternation was misplaced. His Mum was not surprised he was in Alice Springs and not in Adelaide where, at age 12, he was meant to be at school. She was now working at the Wauchope Hotel and she agreed wholeheartedly that a job on a station was in his best interests:
As Nugget would say, ‘While you are killing theirs, they are killing yours.’
Grandad’s time on the station saw him learn, with his ally Dinny, how to ride, muster, camp and subsist in the middle of nowhere; how to shoot; make rope from cowhide; pickle beef; salt beef; a stint as the station cook, and the valuable lesson of how to make bread not damper; how to drill a bore; and the quickest way to clean out an old pit toilet. His first trip to Utopia to get supplies in a wagon taught the value of following the road. They learnt how to fix anything, and all under the watchful eye of a hard taskmaster.
Not all the time on the station was pure hard slog; misadventure, tellings-off which involved a good beating, docked pays, and at times rotating, random sleeping spots so he and Dinny could avoid an overdue flogging:
There were no award wages or any kind of structured salary arrangement for Dinny and Grandad.
This job ended during a night shift.
Nugget soon found Grandad at Utopia and had him back to Ammaroo, and the next few years of Grandad’s life centred around mustering and droving for Nugget.
It is safe, secure, and a school not many people are aware of. In fact, many people do not know that there is a primary school down towards Fogg Dam, unless they travel to the dam itself and see the signage.
Middle Point School does have a long history. The school started in around the 1960s I recall, and it was set up to provide schooling for families who were associated with the research farms in the area. That went on for quite some time, and now it is still going to service and provide schooling for the nearby farmers, sometimes they are Vietnamese, sometimes they are the families associated with the crocodile farms and, of course, children who come from the Marrakai and Corroboree area.
The school only has about 30 students and it varies from as low as 25, and sometimes it might have 33. It is a composite school. There is a class for the small children, and there is a class for the older children. There are two teachers, and two teachers’ aids.
The Teaching Principal is Narelle Dahl, and she has been there for a few years - a delightful teacher, and a truly dedicated professional. The other teacher is Jenna Deveraux, and she also is a delightful person.
The aids and the other staff at the school are Donna Bradford and Julie Duncan. I know Donna Bradford, in particular, has been there for quite some time and really enjoys working there and helping the children grow and prosper. I have been to some of their school functions, they do not have school assemblies as they are a very small school; and I have been to the opening of some of the new facilities there.
Earlier this year, Leanne and Rob from the Education Unit here went down to Middle Point to do role-playing, and I went down with them to lend a hand and join in with the celebrations. It was a really good day. Compliments to Leanne and Rob because the students not only enjoyed the role-playing and the mock parliament, but they learnt something from it.
I would like to place on the record the students who were involved and, of course, they were selected by the teachers, probably based on their performance, behaviour, their attendance, and generally how they go at the school.
The Speaker was Calvin Kelly; he did a superb job, of course, under very careful guidance from me.
The Leader of Government was Brandon Hands; the Leader of the Opposition was Jonathan Dang. Mr Clerk was Mathew Dang, and the Deputy Clerk was Madisyn Teece. Serjeant-at-Arms was Damon Campbell. The Independent, because they did have an Independent, was Jaimi Fitzgerald.
The government members were: Thor Curry, Chloe Holden, Joseph King, Shellcia Campbell, and Zidane Nguyen.
The Opposition members were: Koby Henderson, Liam Fitzgerald and Kayla Campbell.
They debated quite a few laws; they eventually ended up selecting a bill to debate that was relevant to them. I cannot quite recall what it was, but it was along the lines of whether or not school children should be forced to wear uniforms. So, they had to debate the issue out, and I think the ultimate outcome was that children should wear school uniforms - which was very interesting in itself.
Compliments to them all, and congratulations to Narelle and her team. It is a delightful school, a good school, and if any of my colleagues, or anyone from this Chamber wishes to visit Middle Point and find out about the history of this school which, as I said, has a long history, I am happy to take them down there. It is a beautiful location.
I get a little worried sometimes because it backs right on to Fogg Dam, and we know that there is a very large salt water crocodile that resides in Fogg Dam, and their back oval is fairly close to the dam. But I know they do take precautions and nothing will happen, I am sure.
So, congratulations to them all, and I wish them all the very best for the rest of this term, and I am sure I will be seeing them very soon.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to speak about a few of the happenings in the Wanguri electorate, and congratulate some of the people who have contributed to making these things happen.
First, I would like to speak about Dripstone Middle School and their recent performance of Grease the Musical. I have to say, it was fantastic. I really was quite blown away by the standard of the performance and what this middle school was able to put together.
It was great to also see so many parents come out to support the students who were involved, and it was an absolutely packed house. They performed over two nights, and it was packed houses both nights.
You could see the students were having a great time and, what really impressed me was the fact that so many students were involved - it seemed the whole school was up on stage.
It was great to see so many students getting involved in singing, dancing, acting, and playing the musical instruments. It was something the school should be really proud of because it was an amazing performance.
I would like to congratulate the people who helped make the show happen: the Show Director, Janelle Cantrill; Music Director, Elspeth Carnegie; Stage Managers, Josie Glover and Kieran Parsons; Lights and Sound Crew, Andrew Dudley and Douglas Cantrill; Principal Jodie Green, and her staff for all the support they gave the students.
I have to say there was a very special scene of Beauty School Dropout performed by the staff - the teachers and Jodie Green. It was quite amusing to say the least, and everyone absolutely loved it.
Special congratulations to the students who took the time out to do all the rehearsals, all the training and practice - you put on a great show.
Congratulations Dripstone Middle School! I hope you put on another musical next year, because I was quite impressed and very entertained.
I would also like to congratulate some of my other schools on their success at the recent Northern Zone sports carnival. Big congratulations to Leanyer School who won the Henry Gray Award, would you believe, for the highest overall points at the carnival. They had a huge contingent of students competing, and they did pretty well to say the least.
Also, the Holy Spirit School won the Paul Henderson Shield for overall points based on the number of students there; and it was a real honour for me to present the shield on behalf of Paul and, hopefully, present that shield in many years to come.
Well done Wanguri School, and St Andrews, you did not get one of the big shields this year, but you put in great performances, and it was great to see so much school spirit on display.
Recently, I was also fortunate to attend St Andrew Lutheran Primary School’s30th birthday celebrations. It was an absolutely wonderful event, and it was the first time I had gone to a service of the St Andrew School’s congregation. It was a wonderful experience on a very hot Sunday morning out on the basketball court, and it was great to see so many people, about 100 people.
I would like to congratulate the Principal, Damon Prenzler for organising such a wonderful event; Pastor Jeff Kuchel for holding such a wonderful service, and Amanda Peek, their hard-working all-round Administrator of the school, for helping organise the day.
A special thanks to the students in the choir: Alicia Rimington, Caitlin Lyons, Yungor McGill, Jade Lang, Alanah Hubert, Lily Hayes, Tiana Gaffney, and Amelia Sands, and their teacher, Mrs Sharnee Walsh, who helped prepare these students for a wonderful performance.
Thank you, St Andrew’s, for having me there for your 30th birthday celebrations – a very proud 30 years so far and, hopefully, another proud 30 years to come. I am enjoying my involvement in the school and getting to know you all much better.
On a personal note to finish off, not related to my electorate, I would like to congratulate my very good friend, Gemma Thorpe, on getting through to the final 12 on The X Factor. Unfortunately, I was not able to watch it the other night because we were here in parliament, but she just missed out on the top six I hear. Apparently, she put on a fantastic performance and I might catch up on the Internet over the weekend to see the episodes again and see how she went.
Gemma is an amazing young lady, she is not only a very handy forward pocket or wing player on the football field, she is an incredible singer. We have been very lucky to see some impromptu performances over the years at the club rooms or in back yards or out and about - we always knew she had a great voice.
She not only sings, she is a Territory police officer and we are so lucky to have a person like Gemma who is just an amazing character. She has a huge heart, she is great with people and really cares about the people around her and making a difference, so we are lucky to have her as a Territory police officer. If the singing career does not work out, good thing we have her as a fantastic police officer.
Congratulations, Gemma, let us see what happens with the rest of your singing career.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, today I want to talk about a railway picnic I attended at Adelaide River on Picnic Day weekend.
They quite often have Railway Picnic Days there, and if people have not been to them, they are a terrific day to go to. There is a lot of music, tea, coffee, sausages, and everyone just sits around and has great fun.
The music is what I really want to get to. A group plays there called The Fettlers and the members are a fellow by the name of Peter Bate, who plays the mandolin and a tenor banjo; Mike Lane who plays bass; Chris Pimberton plays the guitar; Fritz Risler plays the fiddle; Pat Somers plays the whistle, the spoons and the melodeon, and Tony Suttor plays the button accordions.
All these people are members of the Top End Folk Club and have been making music around Darwin and the Territory since the mid-1970s, individually and as a group. This Picnic Day at Adelaide River was to launch their first CD.
Some history of this group is Tony and Peter first started playing for the Friends of the North Australian Railway in about 2002 at the first Picnic Day the Railway had out there, and The Fettlers have grown out of that, and they have been the house band at all the annual railway picnics pretty well ever since.
The Friends of the Railway share more than a little responsibility for getting this CD out over the last of couple years, they have put pressure on the band to do it. The driving force behind that, of course, is Trevor Horman, so when we talk about the Friends, it is specifically Trevor.
The CD is a celebration of all things railway. The bias is proudly Australian, with some odd foreigners, and there are several homegrown songs from the Territory featured, including one by our own Kathy Mills. It was a pleasure for me to launch the CD.
For those people who have not been to Adelaide River for a while, next time there is a railway picnic, go down there. These CDs are available for sale.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of Year 6 students from St Joseph’s College, Katherine, accompanied by their teacher, Brad Henry. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House and Darwin.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Have a nice time here.
Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of Year 10 students from Casuarina Secondary College, accompanied by their teacher, Mitch Musulin. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to you and hope you enjoy your time at Parliament House.
Members: Hear, hear!
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Behaviour during Question Time
Behaviour during Question Time
Honourable members, you would be aware that during Question Time yesterday there were many visitors in the gallery. Subsequent to Question Time I received quite a few complaints from the Fibrecraft Guild and other people who were present in the gallery at the tone, manner and behaviour of this parliament. I understand and accept that it is the middle of the federal election campaign and things can get a bit testy; however, you are being watched by many people, including the school groups, and they take home stories to their families and parents. This week’s performance has not been good.
Honourable members, I ask you to familiarise yourself with standing orders and reflect upon your performance.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Media Release from Leader of the Opposition
Media Release from Leader of the Opposition
Honourable members, I am also very concerned about the media release from the Leader of the Opposition. It has called into question, and casts doubt on, the integrity of the Chair of this Chamber.
Honourable members, I am concerned there is a misunderstanding regarding the separation of the presiding officer, which I am, and the Chair, and how that is viewed by honourable members. If it is construed that this Chair is aligned with the government, that is of great concern to me. I will be calling on the Leader of the Opposition to apologise by 5 pm this afternoon, and I will be writing a formal letter to the Leader of the Opposition. As you all know, I have worked very hard in this job to maintain independence and be fair at all times. This is of great concern to me and this parliament. Are there any questions?
MOTION
Proposed Censure of the Chief Minister and CLP Government
Proposed Censure of the Chief Minister and CLP Government
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent this House from censuring the Chief Minister and the CLP government for:
gifting the CLP candidate for Lingiari, Tina MacFarlane, water rights worth millions of dollars
stripping Indigenous Territorians of their water rights and instead handing them to their own candidate
threatening the water supply to the Ngukurr community and saying that Cabinet and ministers had no involvement in the decision, but then refusing to release the correspondence between the CLP and the Water Controller
basing their decision to change the science on a phone call
Ignoring science and modelling that exposes the risk of environmental and ecological damage to Elsey National Park and its surrounding water systems
ignoring the rights of other water users of the Tindall Limestone Aquifer, including recreational fishers, traditional owners, and other pastoralists
giving the federal Coalition candidate water rights against the policy of the federal Coalition
refusing to revoke the water allocation grant until a proper and transparent process can be put in place that involves detailed community consultation ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! It is customary for the censure motion to be circulated so members can see it …
Ms Walker: It is coming. It is on the way.
Madam SPEAKER: Please pass it to the Clerk. Continue, member for Nightcliff.
Ms FYLES: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The amount available for extraction under the licence exceeds the combined total of the other 15 existing water extraction licences for the aquifer. These existing licences are issued on an annual basis. The MacFarlane’s licence was issued for 10 years – a decade – a huge amount of water for a very long time.
In the process of awarding the licence, the estimated sustainable yield from the aquifer was increased from 19 500 ML per year to 36 000 ML per year. Based on instruments published in the Gazette between 7 November 2012 to 25 March 2013, the estimated sustainable yield of the aquifer increased by 16 500 ML per year. That is a huge amount of water to suddenly find, possibly from rubbery science based on one phone call.
Representations from the concerned individuals and other organisations, such as the North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance, AFANT, the Environment Centre, Power and Water Corporation and others, have all been ignored, dismissed in the awarding of this licence.
Government already had a well-established working group of local community representatives, along with experts, to give sound advice on the best way to use available water - a process, a plan, all of that thrown out. Other landholders, unlike Mrs MacFarlane, withdrew their applications pending finalisation of the water allocation use plan in accordance with normal protocols. In the CLP’s eyes, their rights are less important than the financial interests of their CLP candidate for Lingiari.
Predictably, to save their own necks, members opposite will construe this critique as an attack on the Controller of Water. It is no such thing.
CLP ministers and members are up to their necks in this. This is why they will not release the documents under Freedom of Information in relation to this licence for public scrutiny - blacked out, not released.
Water is a precious resource. It sustains eco-systems and supports agriculture, primary production and recreation. It is essential to our survival as a species on this planet, but it is also a very valuable resource, a financially valuable resource, and that is what appeals to the CLP. That is how they view water. They want to ensure the CLP member, Tina MacFarlane, reaps the financial benefits. This is a fundamental difference between the members on this side of the House and those opposite.
We see water as a precious resource for all Territorians, for future generations. We need to get it right. You see water as a financial resource for CLP members. It is not just water, we have seen the member for Arnhem view taxpayers’ money as nothing more than a fund for her $22 000 fuel bill. We have seen the minister for child protection’s daughter given a $170 000 pay rise in the minister’s department.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! If the member opposite wishes to engage in activities which could only be described as defamatory in nature, then she should do so by way of substantive motion. I do not see in here references to any of those matters she is referring to. She should stick to the matters outlined in the censure motion.
Madam SPEAKER: (Sound loss, unable to hear Madam Speaker)
Mr ELFERINK: Yes I know, but she is talking about the minister’s daughter and she is talking about a fuel card. Those are other issues, and we will happily take any censure motion they like on that. This censure motion is about water licences.
Madam SPEAKER: (Sound loss, unable to hear Madam Speaker)
Ms FYLES: Thank you, Madam Speaker. On this side of the House we treat taxpayers’ funds preciously, but those opposite us do not. Eleven former CLP candidates and members have been gifted taxpayer-funded jobs; it is the CLP DNA. It is a reasonable expectation of Territorians that decisions made by government on the utilisation of our precious assets, such as water resources, should be based on good science and transparent process, free from political influence.
The processes involved in the water extraction licence granted to CLP candidate for Lingiari, Tina MacFarlane, and her husband do not pass these simple tests. They worked backwards, they decided to gift her the water and then made up the science afterwards. Their so-called science was based on a phone call.
Our land and water resources are precious and Territorians expect the decisions to allocate such resources to be based on the best available information, not a phone call. How convenient when people want to call into question that science that the advice was not written, it was not available, it was just a phone call.
There is widespread concern about this licence in the community generally, especially those who rely on the Tindall Limestone Aquifer. Some of these concerns are summarised in the memo from the Chief Executive of the Department of Land Resource Management to his minister on 14 December 2012. These concerns bring the risks associated with the licence into very sharp focus. It is very important that these risks are put on the public record so Territorians can form their own views on the merits of the licence granted to the CLP candidate for Lingiari.
I will now read from a memorandum provided to the Minister for Land Resource Management in relation to the application. It is an extraordinary document.
- On 30 October 2012, an application was received from Mr and Mrs MacFarlane for the grant of a water extraction licence to take up to 5800 ML per year from the Tindall Limestone Acquifer …
In accordance with the Water Act, notice of the intention to make a decision in regard to the application for water extraction was published in the NT News and Katherine Times …
On the same day, copies of the notice were provided …
Eight written submissions were received in response to the advertised and distributed notice of 7 November 2012. The comments consistently raised concerns with the granting of a water extraction licence of the quantum sought by the MacFarlanes. Comments are summarised …
The issues across all responses were:
The proposed extraction is adjacent to the Elsey National Park which has significant Groundwater Dependant Ecosystems such as springs. Reduced flows may impact on the environmental, cultural, and recreational values attributed to these assets.
This single application is more than the total of all the current existing licences, and double the amount of water which was extracted from the aquifer in 2011-12.
The granting of licence applications should be staged in line with development.
The equity of granting a large licence to one applicant whilst other landholders have refrained from submitting licence applications whilst the planning process is under way.
The water allocation planning process is well under way for the Tindall Limestone Aquifer, Mataranka, and all applications (including this one) should be assessed against the criteria set out in the plan.
Modelling of the effects of the additional extraction proposed in the MacFarlane’s application on springs flows in Elsey National Park and Roper River flows is being conducted by this department. If this effect is insignificant, there are no ecological impediments to the granting of the licence.
- The implications of the Controller of Water Resources granting the MacFarlane’s water extraction licence in full, or in part, relate primarily to the water allocation planning process. Existing licence holders, Indigenous groups, and NGOs are likely to be upset that the planning process, which they have engaged in, in good faith, has been ignored. Under the Water Act a person aggrieved by a decision of the Controller may apply to the Minister to review the matter through a prescribed process.
Leave granted.
The memorandum provides the minister with details of eight submissions, all which strongly oppose the licence applications from the CLP candidate for Lingiari. Although the government has declined to release the submissions - another example of their flippant interpretation of their promise to Territorians to be open and accountable - the summary of the attached memorandum to the Minister for Land Resource Management highlights substantial concerns and issues in relation to the licence of the water to the CLP candidate for Lingiari. As mentioned above, the memorandum of 14 December to the minister states:
- Modelling of the effects of the additional extraction proposed in the MacFarlane’s application on spring flows in Elsey National Park and Roper River flows is being conducted by this department. If this effect is insignificant, there are no ecological impediments to the granting of the licence.
Modelling was undertaken and it indicated clearly that there would be very substantial impacts on Elsey National Park and the Roper River as a direct consequence of the water extraction licence for 5800 ML per year awarded to the CLP candidate for Lingiari. A memorandum from the Water Resources Planner Darwin outlines the very substantial adverse ecological impacts of the volume of water granted to the MacFarlanes under the licence.
I seek leave to table the second memorandum.
Leave granted.
- Modelling has been undertaken to determine the impacts of granting a 5800 ML licence application adjacent to Elsey National Park in the Tindall Limestone Aquifer, Mataranka draft planning area.
The mean annual rainfall in Mataranka is 810 mm, but varies across the region on a seasonal basis depending on localised storm events. Over 90% of Mataranka’s rainfall occurs between November and March.
- Changes to streamflow have been modelled for Elsey National Park, Elsey Homestead, Moroak, Judy Crossing and Red Rock. The late dry season (August to December) period has been used to determine the effects on current extraction, and the impact of granting increased entitlement.
- The number of days whereby the impact to streamflow is greater than 20% at Elsey National Park increases quite considerably with the increase in licenced entitlements. Whilst this is more prevalent in earlier years which received average or below average rainfall, the effect is still evident in years of increased rainfall.
The science is there. Even in years of increased rainfall there is still an effect. Go on further to the Bitter Springs area:
- There is an impact on flow rate at Bitter Springs due to the increased allocation. …
Plain and simple, it is here.
- Although this impact is less than 20% in recent years of above average rainfall, there is a doubling of the impact, with flows being reduced by a further 5% due to an increase in licenced entitlement.
In periods of low recharge, the impact of increased extraction causes the flow rate to decrease by more than 20%. If climate conditions similar to that of the 1960s were to return, there is likely to be detrimental effects to the flow at Bitter Springs under an increased allocation scenario.
Another example. I will move on to Rainbow Springs:
- An increase of licence extraction would also lead to a doubling of the percentage drop in the flow rate at Rainbow Springs.
There is a pattern emerging here.
- The change in flow rate which may cause other impacts to springs, such as a deterioration of the springs from a tourism, ecological and cultural perspective is unknown.
It may be acceptable to allow this decrease in flow rate, however, further work needs to be undertaken to ascertain the minimum flow rate required to maintain the springs for all purposes.
- Judy Crossing: An increase of the number of days with changes to streamflow greater than 20% may also impact on the SIL Ilmenite project. The impact of increased entitlement on this project has not been fully investigated.
At Red Rock:
- An increase in licenced entitlement will lead to an increase in the number of days that streamflow is decreased by 20%.
The number of days where Red Rock ceases to flow in the late dry season (August to December) increases under increased extraction granted outside a water allocation plan.
Going on further from Red Rock:
- An increase in the number of cease to flow days at Red Rock could have implications for the town water supply at Ngukurr.
For anyone who has visited this area, you move from Bitter Springs down to Red Rock through to Ngukurr.
- Currently, water is sourced from the Roper River, downstream of Red Rock. An increase in the number of days where the Roper River ceases to flow could cause an increase of salinity in the pool where town water supply is sourced.
You act like this is a trivial matter. It is serious. We are talking about a township’s water supply.
- In successive years of low rainfall, such as the 1960s, the salinity levels of the pool at Ngukurr have increased, making this an unsuitable for public water supply. It is unknown how long this takes to occur.
This is ringing alarm bells for me, raising questions, and I am not a scientist.
- The salt water interface is located at 9 km upstream of Kangaroo Island. In order to maintain the location of saltwater interface, required inflow is 85 ML per day …
Pumps used to supply town water to Ngukurr were turned off in August last year for the first time in eight years. This was due to anecdotal reports of increased salinity in drinking water by residents.
- Power and Water are planning to develop a third borefield for the Ngukurr township. These bores will be located SW of the town in the Mt Birch Sandstone aquifer close to the river, which is proven to be connected to the river. Power and Water have indicated that they have concerns for an increase extraction which could lead to an increase of frequency and duration of salinity events affecting public water supply.
You have it in the science, in the documents, which you have refused to acknowledge.
- The equity of granting a large licence to one applicant whilst other landholders have refrained from submitting licence applications whilst the planning process is underway.
…
The water allocation planning process is well underway for the Tindall Limestone Aquifer, Mataranka, and all applications (including this one) should be assessed against the criteria set out in the plan.
Again they state that, but the CLP ignores it.
It is more than reasonable to conclude, based on this document, that the licence should not have been granted to the CLP candidate for Lingiari and her husband.
In addition to addressing the environmental and ecological impacts of the increased allocation, the memo raises very serious concerns about the impact on the township of Ngukurr’s water supply.
Power and Water have expressed concerns that the increased allocation could increase the frequency and duration of salinity events affecting the public water. This is the water people drink, bathe in, and give to their children. At the very time Tina MacFarlane is traversing across Lingiari promising better services and communication with Indigenous Territorians, she has applied for and accepted a water licence that will increase the salinity of the water supply in an Aboriginal community in this area.
If she is fair dinkum, before polling day she will visit Ngukurr and advise the community that their pumps will need to be turned off whenever her water utilisation impacts on their salinity levels of the water supply. Who thinks Mrs MacFarlane will do that? I doubt it.
The community at Ngukurr also deserves to know what the member for Arnhem thinks about this issue. Like her CLP colleagues, will she put the interests of the CLP candidate for Lingiari ahead of ordinary Territorians who rely on the sustainable utilisation of the Tindall Limestone Aquifer? She does not care about the residents of Ngukurr. Maybe she should use her fuel card and visit the residents of Ngukurr to explain to them what is happening and what may happen to their water. She can prove me wrong. I call on her to come into the House and speak to this censure, and just once put her people, who she talks about so often, before her party.
There is further observation concerning the member for Katherine that should be drawn to the attention of honourable members. The member for Katherine is the Minister for Land Resource Management, the portfolio responsible for the Water Act. He is also the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries, a ministry that usually listens to the legitimate concerns raised by AFANT on behalf its members. Often, AFANT is quoted as a legitimate stakeholder which provides legitimate advice. What does AFANT think about the licence awarded to the CLP member for Lingiari? AFANT is hardly a lefty greenie organisation, as the Chief Minister likes to label any critical voice.
In its Tindall fact sheet, ‘Your rivers at risk Mataranka’ with respect to the volume of water allocated under the licence, AFANT:
- This process is in clear contradiction to the NT’s commitments to … [the] national water initiative.
- What will it mean to the Roper River; on the government’s own flawed modelling the current approved water allocations from the Mataranka Tindall Limestone Aquifer will have the following impact:
Decline in water security and reliability for all existing water uses
Increased risk on the environmental health of the Roper River
Greater than 20% impact on Roper River stream flows in 50% of years
…
In 1 in 4 years the Roper will cease to flow for 30 days or more.
Why has the minister suddenly stopped listening to AFANT? The question has to be asked because he and his Cabinet colleagues are determined to allocate a valuable public resource to a CLP mate. Although, she did not have to regard the rights of others who depend on the Tindall Limestone Aquifer. The CLP candidate is entitled to apply for a water extraction licence; no one is denying that. What she is not entitled to do is solicit or receive favourable treatment from CLP ministers for a large water extraction licence in a precious environmentally sensitive area of the Territory renowned for its ecological, cultural, and recreational values.
All of these considerations beg the question: why has the water extraction licence been awarded to the CLP candidate for Lingiari? These are some facts and considerations which may shed light on the question. Despite the denials of the Chief Minister and the Minister for Land Resource Management in this parliament, we know the licence application was considered at a ministerial level. We know that on 1 April this year, The Australian newspaper reported:
- … Treasurer Dave Tollner revealed a 5800 ML a year licence - double the size of those held by many other large growers in the region - had been granted to Tina MacFarlane and her husband Lindsay before the decision had been signed off by the NT’s Water Controller.
We know from CLP sources that the minister had promised the candidate for Lingiari that her water extraction licence would be approved. We know the MacFarlanes have been encouraged by the Treasurer to subdivide their property. The other day she was asked by the ABC what she was going to do. She answered very vaguely, ‘Maybe some beef, maybe wheat’. She did not even know. This is the evidence that proves she just wants the water for financial reasons; she views the water as a financial asset. She mentioned wheat; did she mean GM wheat? It is a whole other story. She does not know what she wants to do with it.
We know the government has refused to release 78 pages of documentation under FOI in relation to the licence, including 13 pages of correspondence between the CLP-elected members and the Water Controller. If you want us to believe you, release that now.
We know the basis for this decision is that the documents might create unnecessary debate. Here is your chance. What a cop out. What a cover up. They claim they had no involvement, but they wrote lots of letters which they are hiding.
It is not unnecessary debate, it is gagged debate. You do not want Territorians to know the truth, you want your mate to get rich and just cover it up.
The other excuse the CLP used to hide the documents they wrote was that they formed part of the deliberative process. On one hand they are saying they had no part in the decision, and then they say they cannot release the letters they wrote because they form part of the decision. It stinks of a cover-up.
In the run up to the Territory election last year, the CLP made commitments to Territorians to be an honest, open and accountable government. The CLP mantra, a solemn ‘you can trust us’ was constant in their refrain. A campaign flier entitled, Our Community to You states:
- We will be open and transparent. We are not afraid of being judged on our performance.
A message to Territorians on the bottom of the flier states:
- Please keep this contract so you can hold us to account.
Part of the five-point plan issued in conjunction with the flier proclaims, point five:
- If we don’t deliver, throw us out. There will be no more political deals to hide the truth from Territorians. The only deal we’ll have is with you, to help make your life better.
There is at least one deal, not covered by this contract, the deal to award the water extraction licence in controversial circumstances to the CLP candidate for Lingiari. The contract I just referred to is not worth the paper it is written on. The so-called contract is a fraud. The CLP have engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct. They have ignored the science and the environment, gifting the water allocation against the advice of experts, a community advisory group, the ruling of an independent panel and an adjudication of the Supreme Court.
They have given a huge amount of water to their mate. She has no plan for the water. She cannot answer that. These water rights add value to her property. What she has done is put the whole Tindall Limestone Aquifer at risk. We do not know. The science I spoke about points to water flow through some of the most beautiful Territory which are at risk because of a huge amount of water being taken.
The township of Ngukurr’s water supply is at risk. It already had its water turned off last year. How often will that happen? The member for Arnhem needs to explain to her local residents that this water extraction licence, issued against the advice of science, against the wishes of the community and so many stakeholders, will affect the water of the township within her electorate.
What will she do? Will we have to truck water in there because they have no water to drink or bathe their children in? That is not fair. The CLP needs to stop and to rescind this licence so the science can be investigated properly, not based on one phone call. It needs to show the evidence to Territorians and then hand out licences appropriately, not a licence for 10 years for a huge amount of water to their mate.
The CLP have stripped water rights away from Indigenous Territorians. They have handed millions of dollars of water to their own candidate, Tina MacFarlane. The CLP have made up the science and ignored recreational fishers and pastoralists who are not CLP members. They claimed they had no involvement in this decision, when the documents prove they have. They have been tabled. They are on the public record - documents that clearly do not add up, stating they were not involved. They have hidden documents between themselves and the Water Controller with the excuse that it might cause unnecessary debate.
Madam Speaker, the CLP have put the financial interests of the candidate for Lingiari ahead of the water supply of Ngukurr. The whole episode stinks and the CLP should be condemned.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Land Resource Management): Madam Speaker, as I said today in Question Time, the poor old member for Nightcliff has been led up the garden path by her colleagues in pursuing this matter and wasting the time of this parliament.
Let us go back in history, as it is important to set a context for where we are today. Prior to August 2012, the former government and their department, NRETAS, were responsible for setting water policy and determining water policy planning, water planning, issuing licences, setting up water management plans - the whole box and dice. They had responsibility for it. In doing that, the department, as it was then, under the policy of the former government, determined there is a pool of water available within a particular aquifer. That pool of water should be divided into two portions: one being the environmental portion that should be left in the ground to counter the effects on the environment and to ensure the environment is not overly adversely impacted by the extraction of water. The other portion of that water is referred to as the consumptive pool.
Under the former government’s policy, 80% of what was known to be the total pool was allocated to the environment, leaving 20% as the consumptive pool. I do not know if I need to explain to this House, or to those in opposition, what ‘consumptive’ means, but I will have a go. The consumptive pool is the amount you can use, set by a determination of policy under the former government. It was you who said 80% of water stays in the ground for the environment and 20% comes out to be included in a consumptive pool.
The first question is why is there such uproar about extracting water under a licence that is clearly contained within the 20% consumptive pool?
Ms Walker: Because you have allocated it to a Country Liberal Party mate. You do not get it.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: The member for Nhulunbuy will continually interject as she always does, but I will come back to all the points she raises.
Ms Walker: Oh, he is a bit sensitive. ‘Oh, do not pick on me.’ Look at the beads of sweat on his forehead.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Please get out of my right ear.
Why is there such a furore around the allocation of a licence that fits within the boundaries of the 20% of consumptive water? Under the previous modelling, some 19 500ML was available as the consumptive pool. The granting of a 5800 ML licence under that context means the consumptive pool is not fully allocated. It is also important to point out that this ground water extraction licence does not automatically allow someone to stick a straw into the aquifer and start sucking 5800 ML out.
There has to be a plan accompanying the licence around the development of an agricultural pursuit that is associated with that ground water extraction licence.
To achieve that type of development - and none of the members opposite have any experience on the land - it would take millions of dollars to develop the land so the water can be used. You are required to go through a process of sinking bores, and you have to find the water. You then have the bore licenced and it becomes a production bore. That costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. Then, if necessary, the land has to be cleared and the infrastructure has to be purchased to allow usage of the water on the land for the purpose it is intended.
The suggestion that this was a gift of millions of dollars’ worth of water to the candidate for Lingiari, Mrs MacFarlane, and her husband is completely false because there is a requirement for the MacFarlanes to do certain things to justify having that water.
This is a staged licence where, over the first few years, a much smaller amount is permitted to be drawn from the aquifer. It does not jump to 5800 ML immediately, and there are a number of conditions attached to the licence, not the least of which is the one I mentioned earlier about the plan for how the water is to be used.
Some of those conditions include what the new government considered to be an appropriate condition on water licences, being the amount of allocation for each year can be adjusted according to the recharge rate achieved in the previous Wet Season.
That is a responsible condition on a water licence which reflects the fact there is rainfall variability, therefore variability in the recharge of a particular aquifer. There is also a condition of use it or lose it. If the water is not utilised under the terms and conditions of the licence, the Water Controller is able to reduce the amount of water available under that licence.
Those are sensible conditions to have on a water licence and the MacFarlane’s know that. Since then - and I talk about the historical part of this, the 19 000 ML or thereabouts considered in the consumptive pool - the total aquifer has been reassessed through the best contemporary science available to the water scientists through our department. The 19 000 ML has now - I will refer to it as the consumptive pool: the amount that has been determined by scientists as capable of being taken from an aquifer and used without having any major adverse impact on the environment. That consumptive pool has grown through better modelling, a better understanding of the interaction between rainfall and the aquifer recharge, the relationship between the aquifer and the river and everything else up to 36 000 ML. The licence in the big scheme has diminished in size comparatively to the water available in the consumptive pool.
I listened intently, although I had to duck in and out a few times during the contribution by the member for Nightcliff, but what I heard was many ‘ifs’ ‘maybes’ and ‘coulds’. That terminology was used in a great deal of the correspondence the member for Nightcliff referred to. Any layman can say ‘if’ and ‘could’ and ‘maybe’ and ‘might’ and all those words to illustrate something that could, or if, or maybe, or might happen. Anyone can say that.
Mr McCarthy: Let us say, ‘Did you do it?’
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Another nonsensical interjection from the member for Barkly. If he is going to interject …
Mr McCarthy: To a member who will not answer the question.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: … he would - it is actually a debate, it is not a question - another irrelevant interjection from the member for Barkly. If he wants to interject, at least make it relevant to what I am talking about at the time.
In the context of a much larger consumptive pool, the amount that can be taken from the aquifer – 5800 ML is a smaller proportion than it was under the former modelling. Of course, I am not surprised this censure motion contains a bunch of emotive stuff, trying to gain political points. Let me say before I move on to some of that emotive stuff that there is no smoking gun here, member for Nightcliff.
Maybe this is an attempt on your part to save Kevin Rudd’s campaign in Lingiari. It is the only thing I can think of. Here we are two-and-a-bit weeks out from the federal election and you have probably realised that Warren Snowdon is in trouble because your polling is probably telling you the same thing as ours. This is a ham-fisted, lame attempt to try and diminish the candidate for Lingiari and boost the chances of the current member for Lingiari, Warren Snowdon; his chances in the upcoming election.
Nonetheless, let us have a look at some of the emotive stuff here that I am going to dismiss. ‘Stripping Indigenous Territorians of their water rights to hand them instead to their candidate.’
How on earth is allocating a portion of the consumptive pool stripping away the rights of Indigenous people? Indigenous people, and I presume you mean Indigenous landowners, because it is a badly worded motion. Stripping away those water rights means nothing. Those people, if they are landowners, can apply for water. Anybody who owns land or is an occupier can apply for a ground water extraction licence in the Mataranka, Katherine, Oolloo and Daly areas. You can apply for a ground water licence. No one is stripping any water rights from anybody.
This is a shallow attempt by the member for Nightcliff to politicise this issue and try to make it emotive. I can see the next thing coming will be letters on Natasha Fyles’ letterhead going out to all the people in Ngukurr saying, ‘Look at the horrible thing that is being done.’ You might have done it already. Have I given you a good idea? Maybe that is worth pursuing. Have a crack at it and see how you go. They are not going to listen to you and I will tell you why because the people …
Ms Walker: Their representation does not count, does it? No, do not worry about NAILSMA. You do not care about Indigenous people.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Nhulunbuy, please.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Thank goodness for that!
Ms Fyles: Release the documents. Make it clear.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Same for the member for Nightcliff.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: The people of Ngukurr know there is plenty of water there. Let us move to the next point, ‘Threatening the supply of water to the Ngukurr community’.
Another emotive part of the motion put before us today. It contains no substance. As I said earlier in Question Time today, the Mataranka draft water plan is still a draft plan for a very good reason. When this government came to power, it was found to be lacking under the stewardship of the former Labor government. Where it was lacking was in considering the future of the water supply for Ngukurr. That water allocation plan does not mention it. My brief to the Water Controller - and I am very pleased it was an issue he raised with me - was to consider Ngukurr and the larger implications of the greater Roper River catchment in formulating and forming the water allocation plan for the Mataranka area.
We are fixing up another Labor stuff-up, yet you have the audacity to stand in this House and accuse us of not considering the water supply for the Ngukurr community. You really should be briefed on this, member for Nightcliff. I note at this point that you have not asked for any briefings on any of the matters that are before us, either the issue of the water licence to the McFarlane’s or the water planning process for Mataranka or anywhere in the Northern Territory.
You have not sought a briefing. I have stood a number of times and offered briefings to members opposite so they could be fully informed on what this government is doing. I extend to you again, an offer of briefings. If you want to know something, organise a briefing and ask the questions you want answered.
You say we had no involvement in the decision, but we are refusing to release correspondence between the CLP and the Water Controller. There has been absolutely no involvement by myself as the minister in the issue of this water licence, other than through the Water Controller keeping me briefed on the progress of his deliberations, and what was happening within the department in determining whether this water licence should be granted.
To be honest with you, I do not know which pieces of correspondence that you are referring to that have not been released. Here is a copy of the documents that were issued under FOI to the ABC, which have miraculously made their way across to the ALP benches. I am not sure how that has happened, but that is a discussion for another time.
You are putting a slight on the hardworking professionals of the Department of Land Resource Management, particularly the Water Resources area. People from your side of the House have criticised and blame public servants. It has happened before, and through this process you are continuing to assert that the Water Controller and the public servants have not done their job. That is despicable.
Once again, you are showing your true colours. The Labor opposition have prize for doing this, and I do not know if we will ever be able to stop them. I am not going to just accept the fact that you used to use the public servants as a shield and blame them for the things you did not want to take responsibility for, and continue to do that today.
In your motion, member for Nightcliff, you assert that there was a decision made based on a phone call. I will read the following, ‘basing their decision to change the science on a phone call’. I presume you are referring to the decision by the department to consider 40 years as opposed to 100 years of data for rainfall. Firstly, the 100 years of rainfall data you are referring to, and was previously considered, was Katherine rainfall data that was extrapolated to consider the effects on the Mataranka area.
Since that time, some further information was made available to the department. I am going to read, and I have removed the header so that the particular public servant cannot be identified, because I do not have to blame public servants or hide behind them.
I am going to read from this email, and then I am going to table it.
- In March this year I attended a climate change workshop held by the Bureau of Meteorology, during this workshop all statistical analysis of ‘current climate conditions’ were based on the last 30 year period. I have discussed using this same climatic period to determine the risk to licensees accessing 100% of their licence entitlements over the lifespan of a plan and/or licence (i.e. the following10 years). Previously our approach has been based on the last 110 year period of climate data, however, this appears not to accurately reflect ‘current climate conditions’, particularly the future 10 years, which licences and plans relate to.
The following information from the Bureau of Meteorology and the World Meteorological Organisation support this approach.
Bureau of Meteorology state that “Statistics calculated over standard periods (commonly a 30 year interval) are often called climate normals, and are generally used as reference values for comparative purposes. The period is long enough to include the majority of typical year to year variations in the climate, but not so long that it is significantly influenced by longer-term changes in climate. In Australia, the current reference climate normal is generated over the 30-year period, 1 January 1961 to 31 December 1990.
That comes from the Bureau of Meteorology.
The World Meteorological Organisation described climate as, and I quote from the quote which was given to me:
- … “Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the “average weather”, or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO). These quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system.’
I table a copy of that e-mail.
The next step of that, based on the discussions that were held between my department and the Bureau of Meteorology, which became a further point of discussion between other scientists within the water resources area and the Bureau of Meteorology, hence the phone call.
The phone call was made by my departmental officers to an officer within the Bureau of Meteorology to confirm the information that I just read out to you. This was a result of some collaborative work undertaken by my department, the Bureau of Meteorology and Charles Darwin University.
Your simplistic and scaremongering approach to this is based on a small amount of information that you find convenient to pluck out of a great wad of information.
You also talk about - I am not going to belabour this - ignoring science and modelling that exposes the risk of environmental and ecological damage to Elsey National Park and its water system.
As I said before, there were a number of ‘ifs’ and ‘coulds’ and ‘maybes’ in the correspondence you read out. There were no definitive statements that said ‘will’ or ‘going to’ or ‘beyond doubt will’ or anything like that. The suggestions you are making throughout this motion, the contribution to the motion as you put it, are thin at best.
The remainder of this motion I can sum up by saying is a political attempt to obscure the fact that Warren Snowdon is failing in his electorate, trying to blow something out of proportion that does not exist …
Ms Walker: Rubbish, he has a lot of support in the Gove region.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Is there?
Ms Walker: My word. People are filthy on the CLP.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I pick up on the interjection from the member for Nhulunbuy. You might be interested to know the Tindall Limestone Aquifer does not extend to the Gove region, member for Nhulunbuy.
Ms Walker: I am talking about Warren Snowdon’s vote, you goose.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: You idiot. Honestly, the member for Nhulunbuy …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I would ask the minister withdraw that unparliamentary comment in reference to myself.
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, when a member interjects it invites a comment. The comment made by the minister was to describe the Tindall Limestone Aquifer and its reaches. I do not believe it has ever been ruled out of order in any parliament that describing an aquifer is unparliamentary.
Ms WALKER: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, Standing Order 62: offensive or unbecoming words. The minister well knows that calling somebody an ‘idiot; or similar language is offensive and I ask him to withdraw.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Katherine, will you withdraw ‘idiot’?
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I withdraw ‘idiot’, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I will finish on something I have made public during an interview with the ABC a few weeks ago. I was patently aware there would be some political implications arising out of the application by Tina MacFarlane and her husband for this water licence. I am not so nave to think this would not have attracted a great deal of attention. I knew it was coming.
Ms Walker: You were really hoping it was not going to attract attention.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I pick up on the interjection from the member for Nhulunbuy. She says I was really hoping it would not. I accept these things were bound to happen and it does not bother me …
Ms Walker: It should.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can the member for Nhulunbuy stop interjecting. I refer her to Standing Order 51. Thank you.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Because I was patently aware of the attention this might attract and the political capital the Labor Party might try to extract from it, I was particularly careful not to have any involvement in the decision-making process. I will recount for the public record, the conversation I had with the Water Controller in the early stages of the consideration of this licence.
By way of background, you should also know the Water Controller is the Chief Executive of the Department of Land Resource Management. I said to him in a conversation, ‘There will be no political interference in this process. If the application stands on its merits it should be granted, if it does not stand up on its merits it should not’. You can accept that or not, but that is the extent of the involvement I had, which was to exclude myself from any involvement.
I am about to run out of time, and an extension is not allowed. This is a lame motion by the member for Nightcliff and …
Ms Walker: You are a lame minister.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: It is easy to cast aspersions from across there.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this censure motion as a member of the opposition representing the voice of the people and very important stakeholder groups across the Northern Territory, including Indigenous traditional owners who are saying that this matter is crook.
I will refer to the member for Port Darwin as one of my tutors in this House, because I have learnt a lot from him. When in opposition, the member for Port Darwin made it very clear that when the CLP is in government they are a can-do government and ministers make things happen. They do not hide behind public servants, they tell public servants what to do; they make things happen. We are hearing how CLP ministers get involved, get their hands dirty and make things happen. That is the essential question around this censure motion.
Being a well-referenced opposition that has researched and presents a clear alternative, we are bringing this censure motion to the House to ensure this matter is debated. We are seeking the truth.
The member for Katherine, the minister, has once again used this approach from the CLP that public servants are intimidated by Labor members. I will quickly make a contribution to that ridiculous comment. I was a public servant for 30 years; I now serve the public as a member of the Legislative Assembly. My colleagues on this side of the House, the Territory Labor opposition, all share in that experience, either as public servants or in government working with public sector officials. Do you know what? We still celebrate great relationships with the public service because we engendered respect.
For the minister and other ministers to continually dive for cover and hide behind this rhetoric is immature and ridiculous. They should rise to the occasion; they are now ministers of the Crown.
They have the same challenge of engendering the respect of the public service. Ridiculous comments from the member for Katherine, only seek to reduce any possible respect from the members of the public service who do that diligent work to make the Territory machine run. It really needs to be addressed by the ministers of the Crown. The member for Port Darwin might be able to share some of his intellect in raising the bar on this government’s approach and operation.
I am honoured to be able to speak on this because I am supporting the member for Nightcliff, a member of the Legislative Assembly, raising a young family, a mum and a passionate Territorian who is committed to the environment and the sustainable utilisation of Territory natural resources. That is what this is about; ensuring things are done properly.
There is widespread concern in the community. I do not know what you guys are doing, but we are debating this censure motion because there is widespread concern throughout the community about the granting of such a large water extraction licence to a CLP candidate, the candidate for Lingiari. Many Territorians have approached members on our side. Territorians have approached myself, as a bush member.
The beautiful Roper River and the southern part of that catchment and aquifer are part of the Barkly electorate, so I have a great deal of contact with Barkly constituents. They are concerned about how this process took place. They say to me it is crook and it looks like a deal for a CLP mate.
The minister said he has provided all the information, but unfortunately he has not.
Let us look at some of the unusual characteristics of the licence and its approval processes. The licence awarded is 5800 ML per year, more than the total volume allocated to all the other users of the Tindall Limestone Aquifer, Mataranka.
There is the first area of concern from Territorians; real concerns that need to be addressed. Can you imagine how those landowners feel? They have done the right thing. They accepted licences for much smaller volumes of 1000 ML allocated annually. They did the right thing, and conformed to the plan. Suddenly, a new applicant jumps out of the box with a 5800 ML allocation. The rationale for allocating licences in small steps is that licence volumes will take some years, if ever, to reach the sustainable yield of the aquifer; measured, sustainable, guarded.
The minister has treated these similar users with contempt, and has ignored his constituents. It is as simple as that. Not a good practice, minister, in government, in engendering respect and credibility. I will read from some ministerial notes. Eight written submissions were received in response to the advertised and distributed notice and will be taken into account by the Controller of Water Resources when making his decision on the licence application submitted by Mr and Mrs MacFarlane.
The submissions received consistently raise concerns with a granting of a licence for the full amount applied for. The Mataranka community, including current licence holders, have been engaged in the development of a water allocation plan for the Mataranka area for nearly five years; a very important resource for the future.
All licence holders have honoured a voluntary embargo on new licence applications throughout the planning process and have agreed to annual licence renewals until a plan is formally declared. The total water entitlements currently held by the 15 licence holders in the Mataranka area is 5000 ML a year which is less than the amount now applied for by Mr and Mrs MacFarlane.
There are real concerns. The government needs to take that into account, and address that.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I thank the member for reading that document. Is he able to table it for us, so if I need to respond I have the same document available to me?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Barkly, are you willing to table that document?
Mr McCARTHY: Mr Deputy Speaker, could I keep all my documents together until I have concluded my debate, as that is what I am working off. I need this document.
Mr ELFERINK: That is fine, can I ask that during the luncheon break I get copies of those documents so I can refer to them in our response.
Mr McCARTHY: They are documents that were obtained under Freedom of Information, member for Port Darwin, so they are available under FOI. They are my notes, I have created my debate and I would like to continue, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Okay, they are personal notes. Thank you.
Mr Elferink: You insist we put documents down on the table, but you are not prepared …
Mr McCARTHY: They are FOI documents John, you know that.
Ms Walker: You have access to them.
A member: Do not be lazy, get your own.
Members interjecting.
Mr Elferink: Okay, we understand.
Mr McCARTHY: I will continue with your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, the member for Barkly has the floor.
Mr McCARTHY: When the application for the water extraction licence was received, the sustainable yield for the Tindall Limestone Aquifer, Mataranka was estimated at 19 500 ML per year. New modelling was undertaken and the sustainable yield was increased to 36 000 ML per year. The minister says ‘new modelling, a whole heap of new water’. The Treasurer says, ‘the allocation we are talking about was only a little bit of water’. But the modelling is contentious and that is part of this debate. It has been the subject of ongoing debate within the Department of Land Resource Management.
This might explain why the government has refused to release under FOI, 65 pages of documentation relating to the revised estimated yield. I put it to the member for Port Darwin, maybe you want to table what has been refused in terms of the request to release the 78 pages of documents, including 13 pages of correspondence between the CLP elected member and the Water Controller, and 65 pages concerning how the new sustainable yield of 36 000 ML was calculated.
The minister and the member for Port Darwin, if you have nothing to hide, then you table those documents because that is part of the FOI documents that we never received. They were refused.
There is also a request about CLP being open and accountable to the public. There has been a lot of episodes where this is not the case, and this is a good example. Minister, we are interested in your economic and scientific modelling.
In Question Time on the 21 August, you talked about the pre-eminent public servants doing this modelling, the scientists who do this modelling. In the previous government, I had the privilege of meeting some of those people and learning from them. That information is very important for Territorians to understand when we are managing our natural resources.
Minister, release that work! There is a lot of correspondence that can add to this debate that can answer the question and show your creditability. Until we see that refused to be released documentation, the question from Territorians remains: was this a legitimate allocation or was there political interference?
We also represent important stakeholders. Why has the government refused to listen to NAILSMA? The minister said we are going to create mischief in the remote town of Ngukurr and we are going to send letters. What a load of rubbish! We work off what important stakeholders, that do business with government, put to the constituents.
I will quote from the NAILSMA, Indigenous Land and Sea Management media release, released on 12 December 2012. It was a joint media release from the Northern Land Council and the Indigenous Land and Sea Management stakeholder group. It says:
- A moratorium has been called on proposals that could result in excessive use of a valuable water source until the Northern Territory government fulfils its legislative responsibility to finalise Mataranka Water Allocation Plan in a way which is transparent, fair and inclusive.
The North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance Ltd (NAILSMA) and the Northern Land Council today made the call in response to a recent notice by the NT government that it had received an application to extract up to 5800 ML a year for agricultural use on a single property - equivalent to nearly 30% of the total amount of water available for consumptive use - an amount that would exceed the total volume of water taken up by current water extraction licences (4987 ML per year).
The combined volume of water extraction licences, if approved, would represent 55% of the consumptive pool. Added to this pressure are water policies which allow mines in the Northern Territory to extract water without any requirement for a licence, therefore outside of the consumptive pool.
Once again, an important stakeholder group that is interested in this issue and has made valuable contribution to the debate has been ignored by the government and the minister. A background document for the draft water allocation plan for the aquifer states:
- Twenty-five per cent of the sustainable yield could be used by any strategic Indigenous reserve. Because it has allocated so much water to the CLP candidate, the government has declined to implement a policy on the strategic Indigenous reserve. The rights of Indigenous Territorians have been dismissed.
Important stakeholder groups have made comment in a magazine which I will quote from. In the Northern Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management News, Issue 7, May 2013, Joe Morrison, the CEO, makes some very important comments and provides some very important learning to government:
- We were perplexed at the ease with which the NT government, in April 2013, granted a huge amount of water to one property outside the draft Mataranka Water Allocation plan, but a day before and without community consultation, overturned the previous decision to set aside a Strategic Indigenous Reserve of water for the Indigenous community of the area.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Barkly, it is 12 pm. Do you want to find an appropriate time to break?
Mr McCARTHY: Certainly, Mr Deputy Speaker, we can break and I can resume my comments at a later time.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, thank you, after lunch.
Debate suspended.
MOTION
Proposed Censure of Chief Minister and CLP Government
Proposed Censure of Chief Minister and CLP Government
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, continuing to debate in support of this censure motion, I was talking about the important stakeholders representing the North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management. I quote from Joe Morrison once again from May 2013, Issue 7. It is pertinent that we take advice. He said:
- Indigenous people at a local level have always said they do not want to be consulted after the fact; that they too have aspirations for economic development; that being part of northern development will enable them to create businesses that grow their wealth but also protect their cultural interests.
That is very important to remember regarding our natural resources, our economic development policies and, in this case, the allocation of a large grant of water.
The equity of granting a large licence to one application, whilst other landholders have refrained from submitting licence applications in good faith while the water management plan is being worked through, is not appropriate and the minister needs to be aware of that.
The water allocation planning process that is well under way for the Tindall Limestone Aquifer, Mataranka and all the applications, including this one, should be assessed against criteria set out in the plan. Once again, I issue a challenge to the minister to complete this debate by releasing 78 pages of documents, including 13 pages of correspondence between the CLP elected member and the Water Controller, and 65 pages concerning how the new sustainable yield of 36 000 ML was calculated. That is the challenge, for the minister to table those documents making the documents complete and to hold this minister to account so Territorians will get the full story.
In relation to that area, part of the Barkly electorate, it is important to look at that background documentation. The draft water allocation plan for the aquifer states that 25% of the sustainable yield could be used in any strategic Indigenous reserve. But because it has allocated so much water to the CLP candidate, the government has declined to implement a policy on the strategic Indigenous reserve. The rights of Indigenous Territorians have been dismissed.
This is another casualty of a bad decision. The member for Port Darwin said that CLP minister is in the saddle, he is in control. He needs to take note of this debate and review this decision.
It is important for the minister to realise that in other jurisdictions around Australia there are many licences that are not used but are retained as a long-term investment as banked or sleeping licences, or they are put on the water market. Putting a clear point of reference and an alternative to the minister, staging will keep the volumes used in this fashion to a minimum. This will leave more water for development in the region for everyone.
I remember, as the minister for Lands and Planning, when the MacFarlane family came to meet me. They had a proposal for a residential subdivision on their land which they have held for many years at Mataranka. I was a can-do minister and we were a can-do government, and land release was at the top of our agenda. As we were rolling out the 2000 units you see in the CBD coming on line, the cranes on the skyline, and the 4000 lots of land around the greater Darwin area in the pipeline which the new government has inherited, I was also releasing land across the regions in Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs.
We were looking at Mataranka for land release and were in the process of resolving native title implications on 14 immediate blocks in the township of Mataranka. The MacFarlane family came with a proposal for a residential subdivision on their land. Like the member for Port Darwin, I shared the learnings with that family group on that day. I said, ‘What this needs is master planning and you need to look at the elements to subdivide land and develop residential subdivision: the headwork services which relate to the power, water, sewerage and ecology of the area, taking into account the water sources, the aquifer systems and the pristine environments.
It was a great meeting, and I gave them positive indications that I support residential subdivisions. I support the town of Mataranka and the regions. I come from the regions. I made no promises or deals because that was not the way the government worked.
I took their proposal back to colleagues, and I discussed it with them. The previous Labor government was about releasing land in the regions and appropriated budget allocations towards that. Now we have reached the stage where there is this application, and we present a clear alternative.
Minister, review the decision. Look at a staged implementation plan and you can lead, like the Leader of Government Business says, and make the right choice for all Territorians.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I have listened very carefully and I note the final comments of the member for Barkly were to encourage the minister to personally involve himself in the issue of this water licence matter. I also heard the member for Barkly say ministers should be hands on, and so they should. They should drive policy and they should regularly talk and visit their departments. But equally, they must always do it inside the law.
The censure motion is a hybrid of two different arguments and they are relying on one argument to suggest that another argument can be supported. The two arguments can be captured in the way the member for Nightcliff introduced this censure motion to the House. The member for Nightcliff used the word corruption in her question to excite the usual requirement for the matter to be withdrawn so she might then commence the censure motion, which is the usual approach. Clearly that is what has been intimated all the way through, and on the back of what the member for Nightcliff’s offerings were that this is an act of corruption.
The word corruption is conspicuous by its absence in the motion itself. That being the case, then let us separate out the two issues involved because I listened carefully to the member for Barkly and he was far less suggestive of corruption. He alluded to it on a number of occasions, but what he offered the debate is a description of what he considers to be improved processes, things that can be done better.
There is a polar difference between a matter of corruption and a matter of process or procedure. That is where this assault on the government falls down. Whilst the opposition members would have us believe there is corrupt activity involved, they have not offered a shred of direct evidence to support that allegation.
Where is the letter from the minister to the Controller of Water to suggest he should find in favour of Tina MacFarlane? I have not seen any evidence of that because it does not exist. Maybe an e-mail noting a telephone conversation to that effect, but no such e-mail exists and no such telephone conversation was ever had.
To make out the allegation of corruption, the opposition then has to go through the process of creating a circumstantial case and building a case around the allegation, because they have no direct evidence. There is a reason there is no direct evidence, and that is because nothing ever happened to make out the allegation the opposition is asserting.
Small wonder they cannot bring themselves in the censure motion to make the allegation, because they have no evidence of it. They rely on submissions made to the Controller of Water over the licence application. Some of which contain information - I heard the members for Barkly and Nightcliff quoting a number of these items of information - which was not reflective of the findings of the Controller of Water.
They were the opinions of the applicants in the objections to the licence. Any form of authorisation, be it a planning application, an extraction licence for water, an exploration licence or an extraction licence in mining, has an objections process built into it. Objections come in all shapes and sizes. Some of them are downright whacky; others are cogent, well-thought out arguments supported by evidence, structure and fact.
The censure has no differentiation between the opinion of an objector, the finding of the Controller of Water and acts of corruption by the minister because it does not suit the argument of the members opposite to make that differentiation. They elongate the argument to say something that happens at this end of the process reflects on a corrupt activity at this end, not realising that along the process there are hurdles you have to get over before you make out the case you are attempting to make. Unfortunately, that has not come close to being achieved in this censure motion.
I understand that members may not agree with the science or the conclusions the Controller of Water reached; that is fine. That is what this House and public debate is about. I can understand that we have these debates, and that the member for Nelson has an opinion there should be another committee process. He can share that, and possibly a committee process is the way to go. I will leave that to the minister to determine, as he may want to discuss that with his Cabinet colleagues. Maybe he wants to talk to you about that, but that is not a corrupt act; it is a matter of process. The Controller of Water position undertakes, essentially, what a committee does, but I note the member for Nelson believes there needs to be a further step, because the initial step is not enough. We can argue about how many steps there need to be, but not one word in that argument would suggest there is corrupt activity, which is consistently being asserted by the members opposite.
If you concentrate on this differentiation between what the allegation is purported to be and what it actually is, then you unavoidably come to the conclusion that you cannot make out any form of impropriety based on the loose evidence presented. There are 64 pages missing, 13 documents or the like.
During the luncheon break, I spoke to the minister’s office and enquired as to what those missing documents were. Essentially, they are drafts of the final report you are in possession of through the information search. So much so that I spoke to the Controller of Water to confirm that was the case. The reason those documents were withheld is because they contain inaccuracies and incomplete statements. There is no surprise in that; they are draft documents.
What is to be made out of all of this? No evidence of something metamorphoses in the minds of the members opposite into evidence of something. An absence of evidence is no evidence, and that is all you can draw from that, other than a speculative conspiracy theory. The other component of this assertion by the members opposite, and I pick up particularly on the member for Nightcliff’s observation in her opening lines when she started addressing this House being that this is in no way a reflection on a public servant. It cannot be but a reflection on a public servant because to make out the conspiracy being asserted by members opposite, there need to be three players. Firstly, the applicant - the beneficiary of this decision; secondly, the minister - I can understand that for political reasons, particularly in the heat of the federal election campaign, you would go after both the minister and the applicant. Unfortunately, there needs to be a third player and that is the Controller of Water.
The third player is a public servant, and typical of the approach taken by the Labor members opposite, to Hades with his reputation. We will sully and stomp on it. We will besmirch his reputation based on the flimsiest assertions we can construct from an FOI search conducted by a third party. That concerns me.
If there was real evidence, by all means bring it in here, but all you can offer is an absence of evidence as evidence of something. That is irreconcilable with any form of common sense, yet you are prepared to bring this man’s reputation into this House and sully it. He is not exonerated by some type of dismissive, ‘by the way, this is not about the Controller of Water, it is about the government’.
For the conspiracy to be made out, he must be an active participant. It concerns and horrifies me that you would sully the reputation of a man who has no capacity to defend himself in this House and assert he is part of a corrupt conspiracy to issue a water licence, then offer no evidence to support it, other than your flimsy assertions based on some circumstances which, when played out in any small jurisdiction, are a natural consequence of normal communications between people.
We are a jurisdiction of 250 000 people. There will always be people who are close to ministers of the Crown. We are politicians, we know our small electorates very well so, from time to time, there will be a crossover and links which can be made out, and that applies to everyone in this House. It applies to me, the minister, and every member opposite. Yet the moment such a link is made, the wife of an ex-member of this parliament is suddenly accused of criminal activity under parliamentary privilege. That is reprehensible. Supporting evidence – zero.
All types of assertions are made by people on the other side of this House about persons associated with the CLP. If you happen to be a public servant in that environment, forget that we should have some decorum about making allegations because we do not see that decorum. I have been complaining and stridently critical of this since the change of government.
I remain concerned there is no evidence to suggest the Controller of Water has been involved in anything untoward. In fact, when I was speaking to him earlier, he assured me the minister had acted appropriately through the whole process.
The minister has never denied knowing about this application. In his response to this House he said he knew about it. He knew it would be used as political fodder, but he did not involve himself in the way the member for Barkly has just said he should, and why? Because the member for Barkly believes it is inappropriate that the water licence be issued to a member of the CLP. Does it mean a member of a political party in the Northern Territory is not allowed to engage in any business or exercise that may play out to their advantage by virtue of the fact they have membership of a political party? Is that truly the position members opposite would take?
Or is it more the case that simply being a member of the CLP - other political parties are fine - deprives you of being allowed to advance yourself by virtue of the fact that it opens you up to an allegation of corruption. Is that really where we are going? I would not take any comfort living in a jurisdiction where membership of a political party is automatic condemnation and a reason to drag your reputation into the public domain and shoot it in the back of the head.
Let us be clear, not one shred of evidence has been offered in this House today to in any way make the links of corruption and impropriety being asserted by the members opposite. If members want to talk about the policy, how that policy was rolled out, and matters such as whether it is an appropriate amount of water to take out of the water table, that is fine. However, that is an issue for policy, not a matter of censure. That is a matter of normal debate in the normal processes of this House.
As far as I am concerned, the normal processes of this House should be followed in relation to these matters. Policy issues are not matters for censure. The carelessness on which this lack of separation has occurred is manifest in this document. I will give you an example. It is one of the points in relation to suspending the standing orders for a censure motion:
- … refusing to release correspondence between the CLP and the Water Controller
I would be surprised, nay astonished, if the Country Liberal Party and the Water Controller had any correspondence between them for any reason at any time. As far as I know, the CLP is a political organisation which is headquartered in McMillans Road, Jingili, and deals with trying to get its political party elected, and the Water Controller issues water licences throughout the Northern Territory. I am not sure that too many water licences have recently been issued in the Jingili area.
Of course, this is part of the amorphous attempt to make manifest a policy issue and dispute, a matter of corruption. It is fuzzy thinking, inaccurate logic, and irreconcilable with common sense. It is for that reason that this censure motion is ill considered, ill thought out, and poorly structured. I urge members that when they bring a censure motion into this House they make a clear distinction as to what they are attempting to censure the government for. That distinction has not been made out or in any way made clear to this House, and only attempts from this side to make it clear demonstrate what is occurring in this House today.
This censure motion is aimed at politics, a federal election, at running down people’s good names with a view for a political outcome, and is consequently unsupportable as a censure motion. By all means, let us have the debate about how much water should come out of that aquifer and about the systems we should have for the issue of licences. Let us have all the debates we need to about the supply of water in Ngukurr. However, do not suggest that people are corrupt, particularly people who cannot defend themselves in this House, and then not offer a shred of evidence in support of the assertion.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to what the member for Port Darwin said, and I am not accusing any member of the public service of corruption. However, the process and where we have got to with water allocation has been influenced by government policy. That is slightly different than what you are putting forward.
The question is, why did the government change the rules and give 5800 ML to Stylo Station? There is a range of issues that needs to be discussed before there is an answer to that question.
Stylo Station applied for a water licence for approximately 5000 ML in 2005, but resubmitted a new application for four separate licences for approximately 19 000 ML. This was refused by the Controller of Water and consequently went to the appeals panel which concurred with the decision to refuse. A 500 ML licence was issued to allow development to commence. The issue was then taken to the Supreme Court, which resulted in all claims being dismissed. The original application was resubmitted and finally granted in January 2013.
In June 2008, the Mataranka Water Advisory Committee was established. One of its terms of reference was to give recommendations for granting licences to take groundwater for the Mataranka area and the conditions contained in such licences. You can find that information on the webpage. In November 2008, Stylo applied for a 5780 ML licence, it was rejected. The owners went to the Senate Committee in 2009 to complain about their treatment by the Controller of Water, Mr Ian Lancaster, and to argue the case for a water licence. The argument included that when working out how much water is available, the 40 year rainfall figures should be used, not the 100 year figures.
Mrs MacFarlane told the Senate Committee that the Water Controller, Ian Lancaster, does lie. That is a quote from the Senate Committee transcript. Mr Ian Lancaster was replaced by Ms Diana Leeder as Controller of Water Resources around August 2010. As I said before, like a number of other growers, the MacFarlanes were issued a 500 ML licence.
In 2010, the member for Fong Lim was approached by the owners of Stylo Station with concerns about changes to the Water Act which related to wastewater discharge. When the facts about the bill were put before him, he wanted to put forward an amendment. I always felt he was trying to impress the MacFarlanes. He did not understand the bill being put through parliament that day; which was to do with wastewater, not water extraction from bores.
That same day, he introduced a matter of public importance which dealt with water for agricultural industries. He mentioned that the MacFarlanes had been sitting in the gallery that day, and he had obviously taken up their cause. He then said the MacFarlanes had applied for a licence in 2005 and he goes on to say, and I am quoting from Hansard:
- It was not until August this year that the controller, for no good reason, saw fit to reject their application.
Interestingly, he went on to say:
- Of course the department is merely the puppet of the minister and is doing the minister’s bidding.
That is the reverse of what we have heard today. He went on to say:
- … for some reason or other this government seems to be anti-farming, anti growing things.
I know the reason; it is because the Labor Party is in bed with the Greens.
Do I smell a rat? I sure do. The draft water allocation plan for the Tindall Limestone Aquifer was put out for discussion in November 2011. A background document was included with that draft plan. A review panel was set up by the minister to look at the Water Controller’s decision to refuse the MacFarlanes’ application for a water licence.
They advised the minister to uphold that refusal. I am unsure if I have it handy, but if people would like to find out who was on that panel, they only have to go to the Supreme Court documents. They will see that the people on that review panel were people you would expect to have quite a bit of knowledge and understanding of the issues.
The Supreme Court, as we know, ruled against the MacFarlanes on 6 December 2012. Now we have a new government elected. The first thing that happened was both Water Controllers were sacked. Mr Ian Lancaster and Ms Diana Leeder were summarily sacked by the new government.
The Mataranka Water Advisory Committee has not held a meeting since the government was elected. We have not had a public decision as to why not. It just has not met, and you have to remember that part of its terms of reference were to give recommendations to the minister on water allocation.
There still has not been a decision on the draft management plan, even though a decision has been made on the Stylo Station water licence.
The Water Controller decided to give the MacFarlanes a 5800 ML licence per year after they put in a new application. The Water Controller scrapped the Indigenous water allocation. There appears to be no consultation with traditional owners and not a whimper from bush members. I do not know whether it had anything to do with the last Northern Territory election, but I give the member for Daly a pat on the back. He stood up for the traditional owners of that area, questioning why the government had gotten rid of that water allocation. He understood the importance of giving the local people some opportunities for regional development.
The Water Controller claimed new work had been done. His water policy manager had linked aquifer and river models and reported that the Bureau of Meteorology advised them to use the past 40 years of data to calibrate the model, as opposed to the 100 years of data used in the original ground water only model.
This has since been denied by the bureau and apparently the advice pertained to climate change modelling, not water resource modelling. None of which has been made available to the public, although the minister said he would look into whether it could be. This unreleased work has allowed the Water Controller to make a decision in favour of the MacFarlane’s water licence and the argument for an increased consumptive pool.
I refer to a letter, I believe it is a draft, which I got from the Northern Territory Farmers Association, when this matter was raised.
They said:
- We do not object to a water allocation to Stylo Station, rather the 5800 ML granted. Water policy should not be open to all who want to apply. Lodging an application is simple. Demonstrating credentials as a farming enterprise worthy of an allocation is much more difficult. All our members have had to demonstrate their value and worth to get an allocation. Stylo Station has had a 500 ML allocation for a number of years, but has done no irrigated farming, no large production bore development and no expensive water infrastructure to demonstrate their credentials as irrigation farmers. We will support an allocation to Stylo Station, but of the order of 500 to 1000 ML with options to increase based on demonstrated performances, irrigated farmers and demonstrated investment improving water resources on NT portion 6403. There is ample water resource in the Mataranka Aquifer to allow a staged water licence based on performance. This is what our successful farmers in the NT have had to demonstrate to get a water allocation.
I totally agree with that.
The water planner’s advice was ignored and it is interesting that in the document tabled today, which is dated of 9 February - I believe that is after or about the time the decision was made …
Mr Westra van Holthe: Before the decision was made.
Mr WOOD: Before the decision was made, but when the new modelling had been, I presume, looked at. Marty Myles, who is the water resource planner, provided a recommendation. The recommendation was to (1) decline the application, or (2) if the government was to grant a conditional licence:
- Full allocation as requested is declined. An incremental allocation dependent on proven water supply is given. However, a smaller licence has been issued previously and is yet to be used. Conditions on trade may be imposed and acts assessed application under planned conditions, that is staged development and general reliability allocation.
That was from the water planner to the department, with the Northern Territory Farmers Association saying something similar. That water planner’s advice was ignored and we know the decision that was made. The government also ignored the role of the Water Advisory Committee. Why? If you had included the community in the decision-making process, I do not think you would be discussing this today.
The member for Port Darwin said, ‘What proof?’ This is more complicated than one person doing one thing and therefore saying that was the wrong thing. This is a combination of government decisions that bring us to where we are today.
Mr Elferink: But this is an allegation of corruption.
Mr WOOD: It is not an allegation of corruption. It is an allegation that you can set the thing up in such a way that your policy of, ‘We are open for business. We want agricultural development.’ - you can set the framework up which is not a corrupt framework but you can influence the decisions. That does not mean the decision is corrupt, but it means you have set parameters which are like the …
Mr Elferink: The allegation before the parliament now is that of corruption.
Mr WOOD: No, it is not. I did not see the word corrupt in the allegation. Anyway …
Mr Elferink: That is what we are being asked to ...
Mr WOOD: No, I do not believe that at all. It says …
Mr Elferink: Why is it a censure motion?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: Because I believe there has been influence from the government that has influenced the decision.
Mr Elferink: Well, it is either a policy …
Mr WOOD: Wait until I finish and you can …
Madam SPEAKER: Order, Member for Port Darwin!
Mr WOOD: We have killed off the Water Advisory Committee, at least for the time being, and made a decision, while it has not been operating through the Water Controller. That is fine if the act says that, but why did you get rid of the Water Advisory Committee?
There was no request from the Water Review Panel to give their opinion. The draft plan was not completed. The reason you had a draft plan was to finish it, and then allocate the water.
The recommendation in this background paper was not put together by a fly-by-nighter. It was put together by a gentleman called Brendon Dymock, a water resource engineer brought here to put in these conditions for licensing. I heard the minister today say, ‘That is only part of the draft plan, so huh!’ It cannot be dismissed that way.
People with qualifications in water planning put this together - page 21 of the background document, which clearly sets out, in plain English, that the Water Controller should consider granting entitlements for new licences or increases in licences of up to 1000 ML each time. Return applicants would have to demonstrate during the licence application process to the controller’s satisfaction the full use of any previous water licence volume has occurred before any additional water licence entitlement is granted. Here is the document from a water resource engineer. Here is the Northern Territory Farmer’s Association saying the same thing. Here is the government’s water planner saying exactly the same thing.
Why has that not been taken up? Was there political influence? That does not mean the Water Controller is corrupt. It means the government, through its policies, can influence what its CEOs do.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 68: anticipation of debate. The matter under discussion is whether or not the government has acted corruptly. The matter which the member for Nelson is talking about appears as notice number 5 on the General Business agenda, and therefore falls under the structures of Standing Order 68. I seek your guidance in this area, Madam Speaker.
Mr Wood: Why did we start this debate if that was true?
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Nelson is speaking to the censure motion. Standing orders have been suspended to allow the censure motion to occur. I ask that the member for Nelson to continues his remarks. The member for Port Darwin had his opportunity to contribute to this debate. It is now the member for Nelson’s turn, and the member for Port Darwin is trying to wind down the clock on the member for Nelson who is making a contribution I want to hear.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I am not going to die at the stake over this, but it makes clear the two issues we are talking about. This debate is about corruption, now were talking about government policy and that is why this is such a foolish motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, there is no point of order. Continue member for Nelson.
Mr ELFERINK: You should have listened to the other people.
Mr WOOD: I have not seen the word ‘corruption’ in this statement. I have a statement in front of me, I have looked at it carefully, and I did not see that.
The member for Fong Lim is part of the reason we are where we are. He has been making statements about agricultural development in the Northern Territory. We are open for business. He has worked with the MacFarlanes, and I have no problem with that, we all lobby for people.
However, that is where the influence on the Water Controller has come from because the government has decided this is their program, they know what the sensible approach is and they do not want that. They want, ‘We are going ahead full steam with agricultural development’. Anyone who says, ‘Careful, just give out 1000 ML’, is some sort of loony greenie or they do not believe in agriculture. I believe in agriculture. The real crux of this debate is the government is doing something that is bad for the Northern Territory. It is unfair because we have processes which would have had allowed this debate, if those processes had been run properly with a committee …
Mr Elferink: It is already on the Notice Paper.
Mr WOOD: Yes, but you know what will happen on Wednesday? I know what happens. You will fill it ...
Mr Elferink: No.
Mr WOOD: Yes, you will. That is what happened in my debate last night. What does the minister think happened to the debate last night? I came along to debate something about planning and was left with crumbs because I have never seen so many people in this House on a government side stand up in a GBD and debate something relevantly minor.
Mr Elferink: You missed the jump.
Mr WOOD: No, I was not going to waste my time with the half-an-hour you would have given me …
Mr Elferink: I am sorry that parliament wastes your time.
Mr WOOD: You got it straight. At the present time, the problem is the community involvement and transparency went out the door. I rang members at Mataranka when this decision was made; I know the O’Briens thought it stunk. The Younghusbands are the people who grow vegetables. How come they did not get the licence first? They had proof they could do the job. The MacFarlanes had 500 ML of water and had not grown anything ...
Mr Westra van Holthe: It might surprise you they applied for the water and got it.
Mr WOOD: Yes after, not first.
Mr Westra van Holthe: Who cares whether you are first or second?
Mr WOOD: Because your own guidance said if people have used their water give them 1000 ML of water; if people have not used that first allocation of water, it is in the guidelines that you should not be giving them any more water until they have. That is the guideline in the book. You ignored that. We have someone who comes in here using 1950s philosophy, shoots down anyone who is a scientist or a community member, probably tells them they are all communists and greenies, because this is the way he wants development ...
Ms Lee: Water licences.
Mr WOOD: I am talking about water licences. Why did you not go crook about losing the Indigenous section of the licence? Regardless of whether you support the granting of this water licence to the MacFarlanes or not, someone in the CLP must have had rocks in their head giving this application out at this time before an election.
I am not against the MacFarlanes getting water, but the government influenced this decision through its policies, and that is where I have problems because that policy is bad policy.
If the government does not want more criticism, then reinstate the Water Advisory Committee and finalise the draft management plan, then make a decision on the committee’s recommendation. The minister can say we have new evidence on which we made a decision, but how convenient to scrap the committee. Ignore the water planner’s advice and sack two previous Water Controllers, then say, ‘We have new evidence’. The Water Controller might have made an independent decision about the consumptive pool, and he may be correct, but that does not mean he should have given out a 5800 ML licence. That decision was influenced by the government which wanted to stamp their motto ‘We are open for business’.
The reality is the sustainable use of community resources should be done on the basis of some clear guidelines. Those guidelines existed and if we had used them we would not be arguing this afternoon.
The community should have been involved in this process, but was deliberately left out. I support this motion because I support sustainable agriculture and horticulture, meaning the sustainable use of water, the fair and equitable allocation of water to existing growers and new growers, and that we use our water wisely so the whole community can get the maximum benefit from it use.
This water allocation is very wrong, and if the government says it is all about being open for business, there is a fair chance over time we will be out of business. We do not need people like the member for Fong Lim pushing development. The only thing he knows about is horse manure.
Minister, this issue is a fundamental issue of where this government is going. Do we use science or just use some irrational policy that will sound good? That is the problem the government has; it wants to look good, and in the process it has thrown out the science. For that reason, I believe I will support this.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 8 Noes 15
Ms Fyles Ms Anderson
Mr Gunner Mr Chandler
Mr McCarthy Mr Conlan
Ms Manison Mr Elferink
Mr Vatskalis Ms Finocchiaro
Mr Vowles Mr Giles
Ms Walker Mr Higgins
Mr Wood Mr Kurrupuwu
Mrs Lambley
Ms Lee
Mr Mills
Mrs Price
Mr Styles
Mr Tollner
Mr Westra van Holthe
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Reorder of Routine of Business
Reorder of Routine of Business
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that, pursuant to Standing Order 89, the routine of business be re-ordered so ministerial statements be called on at the conclusion of Government Business Notices and before the consideration of Government Business Orders of the Day.
Motion agreed to.
MONITORING OF PLACES OF DETENTION (OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE) (NATIONAL UNIFORM LEGISLATION) BILL
(Serial 36)
(Serial 36)
Bill presented and read a first time. Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to provide for the Northern Territory parliament to play its part in the various processes necessary for the ratification by the Commonwealth government of the optional protocol to the convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
The convention against torture provides for governments to take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
The convention was ratified by the Commonwealth of Australia in 1989. Subsequently, in 2002 the United Nations adopted the optional protocol to the convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, which came into force in 2006. The protocol, known as OPCAT, establishes a monitoring system for places where people are deprived of their liberty.
The protocol seeks to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. It operates independently of national governments.
On 8 June 2011, the Commonwealth government accepted six recommendations from the United Nations Human Rights Council’s universal periodic review of Australia’s human rights performance. These recommendations urged the Commonwealth to ratify OPCAT.
On 21 June 2012, the Commonwealth Parliament’s Joint Standing Committee on Treaties tabled its report on the adoption of OPCAT. It recommended that the Commonwealth take binding treaty action. The Treaties committee also recommended that the Commonwealth government work with all states and territories to establish an effective monitoring framework, as required under the protocol. The Commonwealth government has been doing this through the Standing Council on Law and Justice.
Under OPCAT, Australia is required to facilitate and support any visits from the United Nations subcommittee for the prevention of torture. This obligation becomes effective immediately once the protocol is ratified. The purpose of this bill is to provide a framework in the Northern Territory to support any future visits of the United Nations subcommittee following Australia’s ratification of OPCAT. Under OPCAT, the United Nations subcommittee has a broad mandate power for it to visit ‘any place under its jurisdiction and control where persons are or may be deprived of their liberty’.
The bill provides for the United Nations subcommittee to access places of detention, access information and interview detainees and other people. For the purposes of these visits, the term ‘place of detention’ is defined as any place under the Northern Territory government’s jurisdiction and control in which people are or may be involuntarily deprived of their liberty. The bill provides a very broad definition. However, it also lists the common places of detention, such as a correctional or detention centre, hospital, police station or court cell complex or a vehicle used to transport detainees.
This is a list that has been agreed upon as part of a drafting and policy development process that has involved all states and territories. This list does not affect the generality of the broad definition. This means that, for the Northern Territory, other places of detention are also covered.
These include mandatory alcohol detention facilities, court detention area, psychiatric units and all facilities involving the detention of youths. I must emphasise that the NT bill only affects institutions under the control of the Northern Territory government. Any Commonwealth facilities would be regulated by Commonwealth legislation or treaty obligations.
The key obligation under the protocol is that the NT government is obliged to ensure unrestricted access of the United Nations subcommittee to the Northern Territory government places of detention within the Northern Territory. The government will also be obliged to provide relevant information to the United Nations subcommittee. Such information includes conditions of detention. We will also be obliged to provide the opportunity to conduct private interviews with detainees and the other relevant people like medical personnel.
Subject to these kinds of issues, the United Nations subcommittee is bound to respect the laws and regulations of the states or territories it visits. I understand that the United Nations subcommittee has a systemic focus and adopts a cooperative approach to ensure that the requirements of OPCAT are met, while maintaining security, safety, good order and personal privacy in places of detention. It refrains from any action or activity which is incompatible with the impartial and international nature of its duties and must be guided by the principles of confidentiality, impartiality, non-selectivity, universality, and objectivity.
The Commonwealth will be permitted to object to the United Nations subcommittee visiting a place of detention if urgent and compelling grounds of national defence, public safety, natural disaster or serious disorder warrant the temporary delay of the visit.
The scope of information that must be provided to the United Nations subcommittee is limited to, quote:
- Relevant information for evaluating the needs and measures that should be adopted to strengthen, if necessary, the protection of persons deprived of their liberty against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
In addition, under clause 11, the United Nations subcommittee is not entitled to access records held by a health practitioner, a lawyer or any other professional person who is under an obligation not to disclose information held in a record.
This exclusion applies to information about a person whether they are currently or have been a detainee.
Under its guidelines in relation to visits, the United Nations subcommittee has strict confidentiality requirements and is not permitted to publish personal data without the express consent of the person concerned.
The United Nations subcommittee may ask to interview detainees and other relevant people. Under the bill, the Northern Territory government will be obliged to provide reasonable assistance to the subcommittee to conduct an interview with a detainee or anyone else without witnesses. This does not mean that a person being interviewed cannot be accompanied by an interpreter or support person of their choice. The requirement to facilitate interviews without witnesses is to ensure that interviewees have an opportunity to provide information to the United Nations subcommittee without fear of reprisal or any undue pressure from a representative of the detaining authority being present.
The bill also makes it an offence to take reprisal action against a person who has given information. These provisions are necessary to allow the United Nations subcommittee to perform its mandate without detainees, their families and staff in detention centres being fearful of the consequences of speaking to the subcommittee.
Within the period of three years following ratification, a national preventative mechanism will need to be established. The national preventative mechanism does not need to be a single mechanism for the whole country. The current intention is that each of the Australian jurisdictions establishes its own preventative mechanism. During these three years, the government will be working towards a coordinated approach to the national preventative mechanism in the Territory.
The date for Australia’s ratification of OPCAT is yet to be confirmed. This act will be commenced after this occurs.
In June 2013 a draft of the NT bill along with an explanatory paper, was placed on the website of the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice. Copies of these documents were also provided to targeted stakeholders. I am happy to report that no substantial issues were raised as a consequence of this consultation.
I comment the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
PASTORAL LAND AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 40)
(Serial 40)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Land Resource Management): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to present the Pastoral Land Amendment Bill to honourable members. The pastoral sector is a key component of government’s economic strategy to provide opportunities for economic growth and development. This government has made a commitment to the pastoral industry to support income diversification opportunities on pastoral land.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the non-pastoral use provisions of the Pastoral Land Act. The amendments will provide pastoralists with a contemporary permit scheme that will enable them to diversify income streams on land held under pastoral lease tenure. Current provisions are restrictive and do not provide the long-term security of permit required to encourage investment or development of long-term projects on land held under pastoral lease tenure.
The pastoral industry, particularly those producers reliant on the live export trade are facing tough financial challenges. Income has been significantly reduced and in some instances is non-existent. Producers are actively seeking opportunities to diversify their business options, to supplement their core source of income - their pastoral enterprise.
The amendments will provide for pastoral land to be used for non-pastoral purposes subject to the terms and conditions of a valid permit issued by the Pastoral Land Board. The non-pastoral use provisions will provide a secondary source of income for lessees. The dominant use and primary source of income on a pastoral lease will remain for pastoral purposes as defined under the Pastoral Land Act.
The Native Title Act also requires that the majority of pastoral leases must be used for pastoral purposes. Non-pastoral use permits will not be issued for projects that would result in the total destock of a pastoral lease.
The former government instigated a review of the Pastoral Land Act in 2004, including a consultation program. The consultation draft of the amendment bill was released in early 2010. Although the amendments as proposed were rejected outright by industry, there was strong industry support for amending section 7, non-pastoral use provisions of the Pastoral Land Act.
Industry has long advocated for an amendment of the non-pastoral use provisions in a manner that provides a platform for diversification of use on land held under pastoral lease tenure. Industry is seeking the opportunity to diversify use in a manner that preserves the integrity of the pastoral estate, while allowing for non-dominant alternative forms of land use.
The amendments will deliver a legislative mechanism that provides the Pastoral Land Board, as the consent authority for non-pastoral use applications, the necessary powers to issue a non-pastoral use permit for a period of up to 30 years. Such a permit will be registered to the lease and not issued to the lessee. This will allow direct transfer of permits when ownership of properties are transferred.
I now turn to the amendments in particular to the new sections in Part 7 of the act.
The amendments will allow the Pastoral Land Board to approve non-pastoral use permits for a period of up to 30 years or in the case of a Term Pastoral Lease until the expiry date of the lease. A Term Pastoral Lease cannot extend beyond the 25 years. Currently, the maximum period the board can issue a non-pastoral use permit is five years and is required to renew the permit annually for review and determination by the Pastoral Land Board. The new arrangements will reduce this red tape and streamline processes.
The amendments before the Legislative Assembly allowing the Pastoral Land Board to approve non-pastoral use permits for up to 30 years will provide the surety of permit required by industry, investors, and financiers to undertake longer-term investments and income diversification. This lack of surety of tenure has made it difficult to attract investors or financiers.
The proposed amendments will also see non-pastoral use permits registered against the lease. This will provide for the permit to be transferred with the lease at the time of sale or change of ownership. Current provisions only allow the Pastoral Land Board to issue a permit to the pastoral lessee, and specifically states that the permit is personal to the lessee, as such is not transferrable with the lease. Currently, the prospective purchaser of a property where the current lessee has a non-pastoral lease permit, is required to apply to the Pastoral Land Board for a non-pastoral use permit to continue such an activity, once the sale of the property has occurred.
This is unnecessary administrative red tape for continuation of an approved non-pastoral enterprise. Not only does the amendment reduce administrative burdens, but provides certainty through permit to prospective purchasers of pastoral leases who want to continue existing businesses on the land.
The amendment also provides for the Pastoral Land Board to have the authority to extend a permit for an additional period on application by the permit holder conditional on the application being lodged two years before the expiry date of the permit. The provision requires the board to consider the conduct of the applicant, including compliance with conditions of the permit and any likely impacts on the environment. The Pastoral Land Board will have the necessary powers to suspend, revoke or vary a permit as it considers appropriate or at the request of a permit holder. The Pastoral Land Board will be responsible for preparing an application form and guidelines for this amended non-pastoral use provision.
As the responsible minister, I will have the necessary powers to set application lodgement fees and annual charges. Fees and charges will be set at a level that is cost neutral to government and sufficient to ensure that industry stakeholders operating on non-pastoral land are not disadvantaged, but at a rate that is conducive to investment.
Before issuing a non-pastoral use permit, the Pastoral Land Board will need to have satisfied itself that the provisions of the Commonwealth Native Title Act have been complied with. It is acknowledged that failure to comply fully with the provisions of the Native Title Act will invalidate the permit. It is also acknowledged that compensation will be payable by the Territory for any impact the non-pastoral use permit has on native title rights and interests. The amended act clearly states that there are procedures under the Native Title Act that must be complied with. The board is also required to take into account government policy and potential impact on the environment when making a determination.
The pastoral industry is of fundamental importance to the Northern Territory regional economic growth, employment opportunities and export income. The amendments will allow the pastoral landholders of the Northern Territory to boost the economy by making viable a host of non-pastoral industries such as tourism, forestry, agriculture, and horticulture.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
An Integrated Approach to Housing Affordability
An Integrated Approach to Housing Affordability
Mr CHANDLER (Housing): Mr Deputy Speaker, over the last four years under Labor, residential construction in the Northern Territory was crawling along at around 1250 dwellings per year. This was at a time when, according to official Treasury advice, we needed to be constructing around 1700 per year.
We were going backwards year after year, right at a time when we needed to be gearing up for the inevitable growth in housing demand that would come with a major project like INPEX. We are dealing today with Labor’s legacy of failing to plan for growth. Housing affordability and the cost of living in the Northern Territory are directly attributable to Labor’s failures in this area.
When they did act, launching a dodgy home buying scheme just prior to the last Territory election, it was just plain bad policy. It was like throwing cold water on a fat fire. Their scheme seemed almost designed to inflate house prices. It was the wrong scheme at the wrong time. It was too little action that came far too late.
The Northern Territory has a strengthening economy and is currently enjoying the many benefits of economic growth. This does not just mean more jobs but higher paying jobs. It means increased opportunities for local businesses and it means new business coming to the Northern Territory. These are all good things; they are desirable and they are the envy of those living interstate.
A growing economy, however, is not without its challenges, and chief amongst these is managing the high rising cost of living that is an inevitable result of increasing demand. As demand for labour increases, the cost of wages will follow. As wages increase, the cost of goods and services will follow, and as new people move to the Territory and demand for housing increases, the cost of rents will rise.
This is nothing more than the most fundamental basics of economic principles. It is supply and demand. These are market forces at work. Of course, the fact there is a sound explanation for these things does not provide any comfort to those feeling their sometimes painful effects.
A family battling to meet the seemingly ever-increasing cost of rent has little care for fundamental economic principles. For the mum and dad doing the weekly grocery shop there is no point explaining to them the extra hit to the hip pocket they feel at the checkout is simply the side effect of a market force.
No, ordinary Territorians just want some relief. They just want to know that somebody is working to fix it. They want to know that whoever is in charge has their best interests at heart and that somebody understands their struggles.
Governments are the ones who should be caring about economic principles and market forces, because it is governments who have a role and responsibility to intervene, where appropriate, to ease the pain on households and to plan towards managed growth. This is precisely where the previous Labor government failed the Northern Territory. It failed to plan for growth. The previous Treasurer and current Opposition Leader failed, in her core responsibility, to effectively manage the economy. The previous Planning minister and current Deputy Opposition Leader failed to release enough land to keep pace with a growing market.
It is as a direct result of the previous government’s failures that Territorians are currently feeling the pain of rising cost of living pressures.
Let me be clear about this, we are a conservative government. We understand the importance of a free market and the value of minimising the role of government in that market. This principle is integral to our identity. We also understand that a government’s core responsibility is to its people, and when our people are hurting it is beholden upon us to act.
This weighs heavily upon us as government and as the Minister for Housing and the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment, I have a significant personal responsibility to ensure reforms around the levers that impact on the cost of housing and, ultimately, the cost of living, are delivered.
We have been in government for over a year now, and we have delivered a number of innovative reforms designed to improve how we plan out of towns and cities into the future, streamline the application and approval processes to fast track development, and deliver housing relief in a targeted and responsible way.
Let me first address the important area of planning, because good planning must underpin growth.
I have already reflected that with better planning, the previous Labor government could have softened the impact of the current high prices for housing. This was not due to a lack of effort on behalf of our public servants. Something we discovered when coming into government was the volume of work that had been completed in the lands and planning department that was sitting around collecting dust.
Work like the Tennant Creek Land Use Framework Plan, which was fully prepared and ready to go but never received the endorsement of the then Planning minister, the member for Barkly. The member for Barkly was too lazy to get his own town plan formalised. It beggars belief.
No, it was not due to the lack of the work in the department but rather a lack of drive from the government: a lack of political will from those opposite. They were happy to sit on their hands because the gas boom was on its way. This attitude was lazy at best and, in my view, a clear abdication of their responsibility.
It took the Country Liberals government to establish the Planning Commission as an independent authority to develop strategic plans and planning policies to cater for growth. It has been working overtime since its doors opened.
The priorities of the Planning Commission are:
to bring renewed focus and strategic planning for the Territory that enables sustainable growth of our cities and towns as great places to live, and ensures the planning reflects the expectations of the community
Projects like Weddell - I was shocked to discover how little work had gone into the planning for Weddell, considering how much money was spent on promoting it as an idea. We had the Weddell design competition, conference, design forum, and task force. In reality, all this added up to little more than soft promotion. No real planning work went into this; no concrete work had been done. It was a cruel hoax that would become plain and obvious to all had Labor won the last Territory election. This was their one shot in the locker to address housing affordability and land supply. It was a fantasy project that would never have come close to reality any time during this period of critical growth for the Northern Territory.
This government has realistic plans for addressing land shortage with real time lines and strategies for turning off lots that are affordable and maximise use of existing infrastructure.
A common theme in catering for future growth is land availability within the metropolitan areas, particularly Darwin, and the ability to achieve infill development and housing affordability.
The Northern Territory government is reviewing Territory land holdings and identifying potential Brownfield sites that can accommodate mixed use, both residential and commercial development near transport routes and activity centres.
Another key initiative is the streamlining of the planning approval process through a number of changes to the Northern Territory Planning Scheme, including making low-risk, low-impact uses permitted as a right, and reducing approval times for major projects by allowing a single process for rezoning and redeveloping land. This may include multiple dwellings in zones that allow that development.
This government has restructured the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment to implement an improved parallel process for land rezoning and development assessment. Industry will be able to have land rezoned and developed in shorter time frames, which will mean developers wanting to release land for Territory homes will be able to get approved lots onto the market faster than ever before.
We are undertaking an audit of government owned land across Darwin and surrounding areas, in Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs, which has identified sufficient land so far for, potentially, in excess of 3000 dwellings.
In Palmerston we have identified 22 sites with potential for 500 dwellings; Darwin 23 sites for a possible 1800 homes; Katherine 10 sites for 640 dwellings; Tennant Creek 8 sites for 13 dwellings, and in Alice Springs 9 sites for 115 dwellings. This is exciting work and we are pushing towards getting more than 20 of these sites turned off before the end of the year.
In the Top End, Berrimah Farm has been identified as being ready for mixed use, including residential development. Land releases in Palmerston East continue to progress with new lots being released to the market in Bellamack and Johnston. Only recently, expressions of interest for the development of Zuccoli were invited from the public.
We are aware there is a need for housing development in Katherine, something the previous Labor government seemed blind to. As a result, land in Katherine East has recently been made available for development through a public expression of interest process. Land has also been identified in Katherine for industrial development to support business growing in the region.
We have fast-tracked headworks in Kilgariff, Alice Springs, with external sewer, water and road upgrades, including a major intersection on the Stuart Highway, now complete. We are currently working through suitable developers for this important new subdivision.
The Department of Housing and the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment will work together with potential developers to ensure Kilgariff provides a range of housing products including opportunities for eligible HomeBuild Access clients to construct new affordable homes in Kilgariff.
We are working towards stabilising the housing market through good planning, streamlining of the development approval process and releasing more land. Housing affordability in the Northern Territory will not be solved overnight; it will take time. However, we have the right strategies in place to get the job done.
Public housing: housing affordability affects a great many people but there are some for whom home ownership is but a pipe dream and private rental is out of their reach. These people need extra assistance and this is where public housing is so important. The Department of Housing has an extensive public housing property portfolio throughout the Northern Territory consisting of single and multiple dwellings, villages, and unit complexes.
There are significant issues relating to the age, configuration and location of existing public housing stock, with many dwellings and complexes approaching the end of their economic life. This has been exacerbated by changes in tenant profiles over the last 25 years including more single people needing households, and more tenants with high or complex needs.
It is fair to say that large numbers of public housing dwellings and complexes are well located on sites that are close to services. Many unit and flat complexes are substantially underdeveloped. They often have sizeable common areas which might have been great 30 years ago, but now create huge antisocial behaviour problems with uninvited visitors using them to congregate. We can all point to public housing complexes that experience these problems.
We can also identify public housing complexes that, by the nature of their configuration and complexity of tenants living close together, are not only problematic but are unpleasant places for people to live. They are not good for the tenants and they are certainly not good for the neighbours. The reality is there is no easy or cheap way to fix these problems. These social issues present challenges to the management of public housing.
These issues are not unique to the Territory. Nationally and internationally public housing providers have recognised the errors of the past; concentration of public housing just does not work.
More and more, there has been progressive redevelopment of public housing sites and suburbs to reduce concentrations of social disadvantage. Contemporary and well-designed public housing close to services is necessary to ensure the best social inclusion outcomes are achieved for tenants and Territorians more broadly.
Public housing complexes in suburbs are being replaced through the creation of new, economically and socially viable mixed-use developments. These incorporate a small proportion of high-needs public housing, affordable rental accommodation, affordable home ownership, and commercial use in some instances.
I have asked the Department of Housing to start some urgent work to guide the redevelopment of public housing and identify sites that can be redeveloped as soon as possible. I particularly asked the department to look at complexes such as Runge Street, as we all know, Kurringal, Tomaris Court and Hudson Fysh flats in Darwin, and Elliott Street in Alice Springs. The department will look at some smaller redevelopments in suburbs with high concentrations of public housing.
These sites provide a significant opportunity for the government to make a major contribution to meet urban infill targets and support delivery of our housing objectives under the Real Housing for Growth plan.
Of course, any redevelopment requires tenants to be relocated. This takes time and needs to be sensitively managed as we are asking them to leave their homes.
We would all agree that the redevelopment of the former Wirrina public housing site in the village at Parap is a great demonstration of urban renewal and infill alongside an existing commercial and serviced hub. It took 12 months to relocate tenants and delayed public housing allocation to people on the waiting list. The Department of Housing will look at creative ways to organise relocation without placing pressure on that waiting list.
We will be asking industry to give us their ideas and seeking their expertise to best deliver these redevelopments. This will be done through an open and competitive process.
I particularly want these developments to:
reduce concentrations of disadvantage
encourage community renewal through a better mix of housing types and affordable housing opportunities that meet current and future housing requirements
provide better housing for our senior population
build strong and integrated communities
get the best value for government assets by working with private sector partnerships.
Remote Housing: significant outcomes have been achieved to date in the delivery of the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing. The department has achieved its targets of 934 new houses and 2915 refurbishments and rebuilds under challenging circumstances.
This has come at a cost and this government remains concerned that many more houses could have been built or fixed had better planning and delivery methodologies been applied earlier.
The Territory has 16 of the nation’s 25 Remote Service Delivery priority sites, and 73 communities and Alice Springs and Tennant Creek town camps to service, covering about 5000 dwellings and up to 40 000 remote Indigenous tenants.
It should also be noted that even at the end of this program it has been recognised there will be in excess of $2bn of unmet needs in our remote communities. Something this government will be taking up with federal government into the future.
The level of funding attributed to the Territory from NPARIH should have been far greater. The Territory has punched well above its weight and has been delivering at around triple the pace of Western Australia and Queensland.
Now that the first phase of NPARIH has been completed this year, this government will be lobbying for governance arrangements to revert to those in place in other jurisdictions and for the responsibility of the program management to rest with the Northern Territory for the remainder of the program.
Whilst ruthless delivery targets have been met under the program, it has been heavily criticised for not meeting community expectations, particularly in respect to refurbishment works and ongoing remote Indigenous employment.
I will be ensuring there are alternative delivery models put in place that will reduce overhead costs, maximise local employment and community engagement, and increase the actual spending on construction and refurbishment.
We are focused on improving opportunities for local Indigenous business enterprises and the employment of local Indigenous workers through this program. This is because we recognise that creating job opportunities for Indigenous people at the local level is essential to addressing disadvantage and improving the livelihoods of Indigenous people in our communities.
Real Housing for Growth: let me conclude with some remarks about this government’s Real Housing for Growth project, which is truly innovative.
Through the Real Housing for Growth project we are supporting the new supply of an additional 2000 affordable homes throughout the Northern Territory over the next four years. The project aims to increase the supply of affordable housing and ease housing cost pressures to support the attraction and retention of key and skilled workers in the Territory.
This government has made a commitment to address housing affordability and supply through a range of strategies that promote tenure diversification and encourage wider housing choices for Territorians.
There is a clear need to stimulate affordable new supply and lessen market pressures for renters and home purchasers. That is why the Real Housing for Growth project incorporates both rental and home ownership initiatives. Through this plan, the government is particularly focused on facilitating the delivery of new housing for renters.
Considerable work has gone into developing a scheme that is attractive to developers and investors which will also meet the needs of Territory renters.
The scheme will be a win/win for property owners and renters. Property owners will have rent guarantees. Renters will only pay 70% of market rent with the government meeting the difference.
Earlier this year, the Department of Housing released a call for expressions of interest from developers and/or investors for proposals for the development of new dwellings across the Territory suitable for the scheme’s rental initiatives.
I am pleased to report that we had an overwhelming response to this initial EOI. We had hoped to receive sufficient proposals to construct 500 new dwellings in the first tranche, and we were blown away with the proposal for almost 800 separate dwellings.
We have completed the shortlisting process and are currently working towards finalising contracts for over 500 new homes across the Territory. The first contract was signed today.
Over 150 new affordable rental homes in the Darwin area.
Over 170 new homes in Palmerston.
Almost 150 new homes in Alice Springs.
60 new homes at Coolalinga.
50 new homes for Tennant Creek and Katherine.
For home purchasers entering the market for the first time, the First Home Owner Grants increased in December 2012 from $7000 to $25 000 for buyers purchasing newly constructed homes, and up to $12 000 for an existing property. Since then, more first homebuyers have been jumping into the property market. The figures speak for themselves.
In December 2012, 111 first home buyer grants were paid, up from 86 in the same month in 2011. In January 2013, 107 grants were paid, up from 84 in January last year. In February 2013, 113 first home buyer grants were paid again, up from 81 in February 2012.
The grant is more flexible than the stamp duty assistance as it can be used by applicants at their discretion. They can use it for anything: stamp duty, adding an extension to their home, buying furniture, carpet or whatever they choose. It is a grant. It is completely flexible for individual households.
The government also implemented the new HomeBuild Access loan products from 1 January 2013. This scheme only applies to new homes, unlike the former My New Home and HomeStart Extra schemes, HomeBuild Access loans are totally focused on real, new housing supply. Thirty of these loans have already been processed this year and are either already funded or at the approval in principle or final approval stage.
In conclusion, this government is taking action to put affordable roofs over the heads of ordinary Territorians and stop the drain of families leaving the Territory.
This is in stark contrast to Labor’s legacy of failure and inaction. Labor failed to plan for growth and failed to release enough land for new housing. Labor stood by while rents in the Northern Territory skyrocketed. This government, on the other hand, is tackling the problem of housing affordability from every possible angle and fast tracking the release of new land.
This government is streamlining the development approval processes, and has introduced a home buying scheme that is targeted at the new housing supply, and is providing an innovative rental subsidy scheme targeting new housing supply.
In our first year in government, the Country Liberals are taking responsible action where Labor failed for a decade.
Madam Speaker, I move that the House take note of this statement.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that housing affordability is one of the most critical issues in the Territory and an issue that affects every Territorian. Everyone needs a roof over their head. You would struggle to find a person who does not aspire to own their own home in their life or a person who is happy to pay high rents. Two huge challenges for us in the Territory are ensuring housing remains affordable to purchase and to rent. There are also many Territorians who face different housing affordability and availability issues than those who are on a reasonable wage. This is a group I deeply worry about because under this government they appear to be left by the wayside, and their struggle will only get worse.
As I said before, everyone needs a roof over their head. They need a place to live where they feel safe and secure, a place where they can live in a healthy environment, have a shower, cook a meal, clean their clothes, and get an adequate amount of rest – a place where they can get a good night’s sleep so they have a chance to function as human beings.
Without appropriate housing, people have little chance to contribute to the economy by keeping a job. They will struggle to take care of their family, and if kids are not well rested, how will they go at school that day, if they manage to get there? The consequences of a lack of affordable and appropriate housing are devastating at an individual, family, community and Territory-wide level.
Under the new CLP government there has been a significant change in the approach to the delivery and development of affordable housing, and in the last 12 months we have seen many changes for the worse.
We have also seen significant lags in important levers to drive the delivery of affordable housing throughout the Territory. One of those levers is land release. Upon coming to government this is an area you have decided to put an entirely new stamp on, despite the massive amount of work done and the progress prior to August 2012. You have scrapped Weddell. An immense body of planning work has gone into preparing Weddell as our next significant satellite city land release. It is ideally next to major established transport corridors, infrastructure and populations.
You have also scrapped the Greater Darwin Land Use Plan, again, despite the immense planning work that has gone into it. We hear you have a new vision to develop in a different area now, but again, I must ask what the reasons are and, with your change of direction, how much of a lag will you create on the supply of land? You believe infill development and units are going to meet the lag you have created by scrapping sound planning work and starting from scratch again.
How long will it be until new residential lots, and I am talking land release that was not already planned and commenced under Labor, can be turned off for new housing. I fear you have thrown this out to the far distance and this will be more pressure on housing supply and affordability.
Under Labor, the Palmerston East suburbs were being delivered and new housing continues to pop out of the ground at Zuccoli and Johnston. Muirhead, within my own electorate, is buzzing along and building a new vibrant and wonderful suburb. On the skyline in the Darwin CBD we can see cranes for unit development all over the place. This is something your government will try to claim as your own, but it was under Labor that these developments were planned and gained approvals.
It was not just in the Top End where work was being done to turn off land to assist the delivery of more housing. We have seen it happen across the Territory. We have also seen it happen in remote communities under the National Partnership Agreement for Remote Indigenous Housing. We have seen new subdivisions in our largest communities, an area I will talk further about in this reply.
Overall, we know land release is a critical lever in the delivery of affordable housing in the Territory and it is one the government has caused major delays to as it scraps major planning work. All that public consultation, all that work with industry and experts, and now you seem content to rely on existing land release projects delivered under the Labor government. Again, unit developments planned and approved under the Labor government, and infill developments which, through proper planning processes, can have extensive time lines.
Under the CLP government, getting into home ownership has also been made so much harder for people, especially those on low to middle incomes. We know the average price in Darwin and Palmerston is approximately $600 000. We also know the CLP government has made some massive cuts to first home ownership assistance. If we are to truly harness future economic growth opportunities and continue making the Territory a better place, we need more people to buy and invest in the Territory by buying a home.
This is no easy task when housing prices are on the up under the CLP government, and this looks set to continue because of the lag we are starting to see in land release planning.
The scrapping of the HOMESTART program was a bad move by the CLP government, especially the shared equity program that helped Territorians get their start in the housing market and make a life here. It worked because it did not leave people in housing stress with out of control mortgage payments, and it helped people get a little equity so they could eventually buy their home outright, with the government being paid its fair share at the market rate. It was a fantastic program with low deposits, a 35-year repayment time frame, and it worked for people in Darwin, Palmerston, the rural area, Tennant Creek, Katherine, and Alice Springs.
It was a program that worked because it helped people afford to buy a home and keep up with their mortgage repayments, and it was dumped. You dumped a fantastic affordable home ownership program. You also scrapped the My New Home, which was designed to help people into home ownership and to drive new housing.
The government’s new home ownership program, HomeBuild Access, has been in place since January this year, and I notice this statement is not crowing success about this scheme. To date, you have only had 30 loans, and of those, some are still going through the approval stages. This does not strike me as an effective home ownership program given it has been around for seven months. I note in June there were 25 loans, so we have only seen an increase of five since then.
In stark contrast, the programs you scrapped, HomeStart and My New Home, had almost 300 loans in the first six months. That is 300 under Labor’s popular and successful schemes for first home ownership versus 30 under the CLP government.
You are making it harder for people to buy a home. You are backing the wrong horse in this race, and this is something you need to look at again. You have replaced effective home ownership schemes with something which is not getting results.
In addition, you also scrapped the first homeowner stamp duty concession which provided up to $26 730 for up to a $540 000 purchase on a home. Now first homebuyers need to find the money to pay their stamp duty.
This government’s strategy was to increase the already existing first homeowner’s grant which we heard about in this statement. It went up from $7000 to $12 000 for established properties in the Darwin, Palmerston and rural areas, or $25 000 for new properties. It was also $25 000 for other areas of the Territory.
The difference between Labor versus the CLP to buy an established home in Darwin, Palmerston or the rural area valued at $540 000 for a first homeowner would have been $22 000. That is, under the CLP a first homebuyer needs to find an extra $22 000 to buy that first home.
If a first homebuyer was to buy a newly-built property in Darwin, Palmerston or the rural area at that $540 000 rate, under Labor last year that would have included the $10 000 BuildBonus. There would have been a difference of $19 000 between Labor and the CLP government’s first home ownership programs. First homeowners buying a brand new place will now need to find an extra $19 000 because of the CLP government’s changes.
You promote your first home ownership programs as a win but, in fact, homebuyers are not better off under the CLP government. There is less assistance and housing is not more affordable.
When we talk about affordable housing, it is important to look at what government does to provide homes for those on very low incomes. That is providing accommodation for people with little money and the inability to afford private market rents. These are Territorians who rely on public housing as it is all they can afford.
For some tenants, this government has increased their rent by approximately $200 a week. That is an extra $10 000 a year for people on low incomes which they now need to find. That is a huge hit to their livelihoods. This has happened to people just over the limit. I have seen cases where it has split families up, and members of the family have had to move out. I have seen people quit their jobs to stop earning money. That is not productive for our economy and does not help anyone. It certainly does not help their personal circumstances.
I have seen rents jacked up for elderly people with dementia. I have seen a person charged $400 a week to live at the Kurringal flats. It is a shocker. You have justified your desire to jack up the rent of low-income earning tenants to get more funding into public housing and to help push people out. This is a heartless cash grab because there are limited options on where people can go, even if they do want to get out.
Under the CLP government, it seems all efforts around housing are solely being put into the Real Housing for Growth policy which, essentially, is more affordable rental properties. Looking at the release today, it seemed to be purely targeted at workers.
I agree wholeheartedly we need to have more affordable rental accommodation to fill the growing gap between public housing and private market rents. Low- to middle-income earners are struggling to afford market rents. Everyone knows the cost of living here is through the roof. However, it seems you are only focused on this space to the detriment of affordable home ownership and public housing, because it appears to be neglected.
This government’s strategy has been to push people out of public housing by putting rents up over $10 000 a year in some cases. I hope specific allowances in the Real Housing for Growth policy have been made to allocate existing Territory Housing tenants into some of the new affordable rental stock. It is a logical progression.
I am keen to hear from the Housing minister whether there is a specific target which has been set for the new properties being built under the Real Housing for Growth properties for existing public housing tenants who are deemed as being over entitlement or appear to have better income earning prospects in front of them.
Ultimately, it is good for people to move out of public housing if they have the capacity to do so. There is a big gap there, and it would be interesting to see how many of those 2000 current public housing tenants you are specifically targeting with your new policy and scheme.
It is also concerning that, aside from making rents unaffordable for many struggling tenants, you are also using the sale of public housing as another cash grab. You have stated you will be selling 50 properties, and I am be interested to see how many of those have been sold in the last year and how many more will be sold in the next 12 months. I have heard mixed messages about what you plan to do with this money. I have heard that you will use it for R&M. I have also been told it will be reinvested into building new public housing. I am still not sure what will happen with it.
I cannot understand why the government is not selecting more suitable sites for redevelopment, such as putting a duplex on a very large lot of land so public housing tenants such as seniors or people with disabilities can live there. These are the opportunities I want to see more of. They are in the budget that recently passed, and clearly there were no new plans for anything to be built in the public housing space that was not already allocated under Labor.
I am adamant that the money generated from selling public housing must be reinvested into existing and public housing. You are stripping public housing stock out of the market and not replacing it. The number of public housing properties is reducing under the watch and willingness of this CLP government.
I am glad to see the CLP government is following Labor’s election commitment in planning for the redevelopment of some of our most aged public housing complexes such Runge Street, Kurringal, Hudson Fysh and Tomaris Court.
I appreciate the briefing the Housing minister’s office provided the member for Fannie Bay and me this week, after we met with some very stressed tenants from Kurringal. I am eagerly awaiting the outcomes of the expression of interest from Runge Street. I hope to see a sound, mixed development that does not send public housing backwards with limited returns to public housing units.
I wait to see what comes of your plans to redevelop the Kurringal flats when putting expressions of interest out in the near future. In the meantime, tenants need to be kept closely informed of your plans, given suitable choices for relocation, and not rushed out of their homes.
Public housing tenants are no different to you or I, and moving house is a stressful process for anyone. Some tenants are stressed because they are unsure where their future lies, and some have had been pressured to quickly decide where they live.
I look forward to receiving more detail on the future of Kurringal, and to see what is happening with Runge Street.
It is important that you maintain public housing numbers to ensure tenants have suitable and affordable options when you eventually knock down some of those complexes.
It is concerning that public housing vacancies have increased under the CLP, meaning less affordable housing available for Territorians on low incomes. At estimates we heard that vacancy numbers for dwellings was nearing 300; that is an increase of 100 for the same time in the previous year.
I fear this number has grown due to Kurringal undergoing some decanting whilst they decide how to redevelop it, and as part of the government plans to sell off individual dwellings. This means longer wait times for people on the public housing wait list, which has certainly increased under the last 12 months of the CLP.
The numbers are certainly on the increase in most one bedroom non-pensioner, one bedroom pensioner, two bedroom and three bedroom dwellings in Alice Springs, Darwin, Casuarina, Palmerston and Katherine; and people are waiting longer to get in.
I am concerned affordable public housing is on the decline, taking us back to the days when government used public housing as a cash cow. It was heartening to finally hear those on the other side of the Chamber this week acknowledge the immense work and achievement of the $1.7bn, 10-year National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing, or NPARIH. As I said earlier, everybody needs a roof over their head, and it is important that it is safe and secure, in a healthy and liveable environment. For too long, families in the bush have struggled with overcrowding and deteriorating housing. Although vast improvements have been made under NPARIH, there is still a very long journey ahead.
The minister said the $1.7bn investment in NPARIH should have been far greater. Had this been two years ago, I would have fallen over to read this statement, given the condemnation we have heard from the CLP about NPARIH over the years.
No, $1.7bn is not enough to meet the backlog, but it has been a solid start. The joint Territory and Australian government effort to deliver more housing in the bush is a program that must continue well beyond 2018. Successive governments, no matter what their stripes or their colours, need to work together to continue this investment in remote Indigenous housing. We still have a long way to go, but a lot has been achieved.
At the end of May almost 2800 refurbishments and rebuilds were completed and over 900 new homes built with another 72 under way. That is 3700 families living in the bush in new or improved housing. That is a change for the better.
Not all families are benefiting and the huge journey needs to continue in this area. Aside from the continued investment in infrastructure and housing going forward, there needs to be sustained and ongoing investment in property and tenancy management.
Wadeye is one of the largest recipients of NPARIH investment, and when I recently visited, I could see the condition of some of the new properties was concerning. Property and tenancy management must be maintained for the new housing to ensure it has a 30-40 year lifespan. I was also concerned to read the new employment figures for NPARIH. The program has always had a target of 20% Indigenous employment so local people have a chance to get a job, gain some formal training and improve their long-term work prospects.
I note you are grouping NPARIH and Stronger Futures workforces together in your reporting, which indicates that in NPARIH alone, you are no longer meeting your Indigenous employment targets, so fewer Indigenous Territorians are benefiting from working in these programs.
It was disappointing the statement failed to mention the area of social and community housing. I recently met with a range of non-government organisations that provide crisis and supported accommodation, along with transitional and affordable housing to those who are desperately in need. They tell me that desperate people are being turned away and the numbers are growing.
Probably one of the most disheartening conversations I had was with an organisation that assists domestic violence victims and has a certain number of houses to accommodate people. They house victims and their families through a transitional process when they leave their partner, but at some stage other victims and families will also need that accommodation. As they wait on the waiting list or try to find something affordable, their hopes and prospects just do not eventuate. People want a roof over their head and a safe and secure place to live. The most horrible aspect to hear was that, in some of the cases, people gave up hope in the long-term prospect of finding housing and eventually went back to their partners. That is really sad.
It is an area where we need to work with the non-government sector to explore other housing options that can be provided when people leave their horrible lives and try to make new ones. They have been brave enough to leave and find something for the longer term that will work for their families and will give their kids a good future. I am hoping to see a little more work in that space.
In conclusion, we can all safely say that every member of this parliament agrees that the delivery of housing is critical to the future of the Territory and that housing needs to be affordable. The CLP government has put all its eggs in one basket with the Real Housing for Growth program and has lost sight of low- to middle-income earners’ aspirations to become home owners, and public housing tenants are being left behind.
I hope in the next few years the CLP government will refocus their attention on affordable housing areas that have fallen behind and ensure they do not become irretrievable and drive people to overcrowding, homelessness or having no option but to leave the Territory.
Mr KURRUPUWU (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I support minister Chandler’s statement on affordable housing in the Territory. Minister Chandler and the Giles government have set a cracking pace trying to overcome the lack of focus of the previous Labor government in making land and housing available to Territory families and workers more affordable.
Within seven months in government, Crown land has been identified with the potential for an additional 1000 homes. The minister and the Giles government immediately began to actively seek and assess subdivision proposals to make these homes a reality. Our government is committed to building 2000 affordable homes over four years.
The City Gate development at Daly and Wood Streets is an example of developers working with the government, with some units available to lease and rent at a subsidised rate to make them more affordable. City Gate will include a total of 325 one and two bedroom dwellings, with around 10% to be included as Real Housing for Growth.
Other sites in Darwin identified for future development include the 1.45 ha Sports House site in Fannie Bay, Tomaris Court, the CBD, Runge Street public housing, Berrimah Farm and the NTG Fleet site.
Developers, investors and builders are actively involved in overcoming the housing and land crisis which resulted under Labor. They know they can trust the Giles government and minister Chandler to deliver.
The Country Liberal government can activate business for the benefit of the Territory working family. An important add-on change is we are speeding up the assessment of development applications by removing the needless procedural bureaucracy and red tape loved so much by the opposition. Besides that, our government is moving to actively assist renters and those wanting to buy their own home. For people renting, we will provide 30% subsidies to those workers being squeezed hard by high private market rents. For Territorians wanting to own a new home, the government’s HomeBuild Access package offers low-interest loans or deposit subsidy options to assist Territorians.
As a result of the government’s action to slash red tape and speed up the development application process, there has been a record number of residential building approvals. This boom in building is acting to further stimulate the economy and grow more jobs, and is putting the Territory at the forefront of economic growth in Australia.
In the year to March, the number of approvals for housing increased 20.2% to 774 with development in the new suburbs of Muirhead in Darwin, and Bellamack and Johnston in Palmerston. In addition, the Territory Country Liberal government is spending nearly $53m to upgrade and improve urban public housing in 2013.
The previous government neglected public housing and let many sites run down. Land release lagged behind with the result there was continued increased pressure on rent and an increased demand for public housing spaces. As the Territory government pays back Labor’s huge debt and grows our economy, we will invest more in public housing.
The Territory government has a two-pronged approach to increasing the rental supply to attract developers and assist potential tenants. The Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment, and Housing, Peter Chandler, has said developers and investors will be attracted by a guaranteed government lease and eligible works will receive a rent subsidy.
Budget 2013 has invested $275.15m in housing. From this, $3.8m will support the head leasing rental initiative for the Real Housing for Growth plan. The budgeted amount for head leasing will increase to $9.9m from 2015-16. The minister has announced the grant will make a tremendous difference to homebuyers and will help stimulate building.
The first home grant provided $25 000 for a new home and land package to build a home throughout the Territory. For people buying an existing home there is a $12 000 grant for Darwin, Palmerston and Darwin rural areas and $25 000 for the rest of the Territory, as there are limited new homes in these areas. Mr Chandler said there was also a principal place of residence rebate of up to $7000 for non-first homebuyers to buy a new home or land.
The government also supports the homebuyers’ initiative to encourage keen homebuyers to have eligibility and finance pre-approved and ready to buy the moment houses come on the market. In addition, Budget 2012-13 continued the huge Territory and Commonwealth investment to make significant improvement for housing in remote communities. In total, the Territory budget has an allocation of $216.5m to build new homes and upgrade existing houses in remote communities.
The Indigenous housing program will have developed 934 new houses, 450 rebuilds of existing houses and 2500 refurbishments across 73 remote Indigenous communities and a number of community living areas, or town camps, in the Northern Territory in its first five years.
Recently, the minister announced the next stage of significant subdivision with at least 200 lots in Palmerston East. This will deliver a minimum of 200 residential lots in one of the Territory’s fastest growing areas. The minister achieved a tremendous amount in a relatively short space of time. He has done this because he knows he has to make a significant difference to the Territory’s working families. We need affordable, efficient, and sustainable housing. This is something not appreciated or acted upon by the previous Labor government. As a result, it put the Territory economy and population growth at significant risk and placed Territory individuals and families under significant financial strain.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Arafura for his contribution. I would like to have heard some recognition that the Tiwi Islands had one of the largest numbers of houses built under SIHIP, for better or worse. There were some issues, but considering the state of the houses some years ago to what is there now, it would be right to say there was, and still is, a housing program at Bathurst Island that has relieved overcrowding. We all know there were some problems with SIHIP, as it was called then, but there should be some recognition that the previous government put a big effort into housing and employment there. In fact, the Tiwis had one of the highest Indigenous employment participation rates of any community in the Northern Territory.
It would have been good to hear from the member for Arafura about another area: Aboriginal home ownership. It is not an easy area to go through. In Nguiu - or its new name I keep forgetting, sorry ...
Mr Kurrupuwu: Wurrumiyanga.
Mr WOOD: … there were issues about the township lease and there has been much debate over years gone by. However, there are still issues in other communities with how an Aboriginal person gets a lease to put a house on Aboriginal land. I am partly going through that process on behalf of my wife at the moment, and it is not that simple.
That is an area I would like to hear more about, particularly from Indigenous members of the government, and the government itself, as to where they see that opportunity being developed to relieve the burden on public housing and give Aboriginal people the same opportunities to own their own house as I have. It is not easy, and this is not a criticism of government because it was difficult for the previous government …
Ms Lee: interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Mumble, mumble, mumble. It is something we need to look at because you cannot have Aboriginal communities relying on public housing. The cost is extraordinarily high and there has to be some light at the end of the tunnel for governments because in the future they are not going to say that is an acceptable goal. It is an area that needs more debate and discussion. I thank the member for Arafura for his contribution.
A question for the minister which is never asked is: what does the minister describe as housing affordability? What does the government say is an affordable house? Do you have a figure? Is an affordable house one that a single income family can afford?
Unless on an extremely high income, I am unsure that anyone in the Northern Territory on one income could afford to buy a house. Most families have two people working, simply because the cost of housing is so high. It would be good to hear from the government what it defines as affordable housing. Does it mean a 200 m2 block with no room to swing a cat: one bedroom, a toilet and shower, and room to park the car? Or does it mean a reasonably sized block that has been developed at a reasonable price on which a reasonably sized house can be built? We do not debate these issues enough.
Housing affordability is a broad term. If the land is too expensive, you will not have enough money to build a house on it. If you can bring the cost of the land down to a reasonable price, there is a fair chance you could build what I will call an affordable house. The government needs to define what they are trying to achieve when saying ‘housing affordability’.
I have had a bit to do with the new suburb of Zuccoli mainly because, as Madam Speaker would know - backs onto her electorate – it is just over the road from my electorate. For many years, people on Radford Road in the rural area knew the great suburban growth was coming towards them, and they feared that day because before then they had a nice lot of bush next door. The day has come when Zuccoli is right on their doorstep. There have been discussions with developers who want to reduce the buffer zone which was originally 4000 m2 blocks. That was done deliberately to give a buffer between the suburban area and the rural blocks, which makes a lot of sense.
I was at the discussion with the developer and the community. The argument with the developer was that he wanted to divide the 4000m2 blocks into smaller lots because larger blocks were unaffordable. He was basically saying the blocks in Darwin are too big. If you want affordable blocks you have to look at something like 400 m2. That is affordability. This is a southern company, coming to the Northern Territory and saying if you want affordable housing this is the size of the blocks you must have.
I said it is obvious that no one in Zuccoli will ever captain the Australian cricket team, because they will never have any room to play cricket. The developers reply was that there is a park on the corner, etcetera. Not only do we have this approach that the only way you will have affordable land is to have a smaller block, we are losing the discussion about affordable living: having a tropical house with room for natural airflow because we will have small blocks and houses that rely on air conditioning.
We are not looking at the social issues of crowding people into small blocks. What is the effect on families with very little room to move? Not only room to move but you will notice developers, minister for Planning, who continually try to reduce the size of roads so you can park one car allowing one car to pass, with tiny nature strips because the smaller the road the more blocks of land you can divide. They will argue that makes the subdivision more affordable; it does not necessarily make it is more liveable.
It would like to hear about the government’s vision of what it classes as affordable housing. The government has these great ideas, as this is what the statement is about. Look at the amount of infrastructure that went into Zuccoli, which was not an easy parcel of land to develop. It has steep, rocky areas and creeks, etcetera. I often go down Lambrick Avenue and see the enormous amount of headworks that went into that subdivision. Who pays for that subdivision? The government is paying for the headworks, not the developer. The developer works off those headworks.
If you are going to look at affordable housing and the government is going to open up land then, in truth, the government has to say what its contribution is because that is the taxpayers’ contribution. If you subsidise more of the infrastructure, the housing affordability amount will go lower and lower.
If we are debating housing affordability, we need to know what amount of money the government is putting in, the amount the developer is putting in, and what the person who wants to buy a parcel of land has to pay for it. They are some of the basic foundations of any debate about the true cost of housing in the Northern Territory. If you do not have those figures, you can gloss over the reality of life.
Minister, I will not go into all the things the member for Wanguri said. She covered a range of topics that were quite appropriate.
Page 7 of the statement says:
- In the Top End, Berrimah Farm has been identified as being ready for mixed use, including residential development.
That is news to me. I understood the Territory government established an NT Planning Commission to look at the development of the greater Darwin area, including Berrimah Farm. There has been a lot of discussion about the possible use of the Berrimah Farm area. Especially in light of the fact it is close to the Darwin East Arm port and is surrounded by two industrial areas: Tivendale Road and Pruen Road.
I ask the minister whether the government has made a decision about Berrimah Farm without it going out for consultation through the NT Planning Commission. This statement says ‘… Berrimah Farm has been identified …’
Mr Chandler interjecting.
Mr WOOD: That is right. ‘Identified for development’, would have be the proper words, whether it is industrial or residential is still to be decided. It does not quite say that in the statement so I was a little suspicious of the way it was written. I hope it is not the case that something has been decided, because the NT Planning Commission, I presume, is looking at this area so that will come up for discussion.
Another area the government could look at, which I put to the previous government, is land trusts. Land trusts are a way to have affordable housing. In America, there are about 140 land trusts. Land trusts are where the government leases the land, or a philanthropic person who owns a large parcel of land allows people to build their houses on that land, and they pay rent to have the house on the land.
Some people compare it with Canberra where people have a lease. I put it to the minister to look at land trusts when you are looking at options. They are part of the mix in the United States. They allow low- to middle-income earners to have enough money to buy their house. The theory is, if you are buying a house, half the cost is the house, half is the land. If you can lease the land, you reduce the requirement for people to have a large mortgage because they only have to get a mortgage for the house, and have a lease arrangement with the owner of the land.
This is not something new; I have not made this up. I suggest it as it may be an alternative for the government, and it may be that parts of Kilgariff could come under a land trust. You cannot sell the land for a huge profit because it remains as a land trust with certain ideals, and that area is basically for people on a low to middle incomes. They can still sell their premises, but it is more or less to cover the cost of improvements. It is not meant to be used as an investment. However, it gives people an opportunity to own a house without huge burdens of paying back large mortgages.
The other area that is often missed is outstations. The Minster for Local Government is looking at improving some of the outstation houses - $5200. I am unsure what that will do in reality, but that is the program. My understanding is outstations miss out all the time. I am unsure if the government has looked at whether there should be some program. It might only be small but there is a program for housing for people who want to go back to their own land.
Again, I use the example of where my sisters-in-law live. They live in a small house, and unless they have enough money to build a house; which I doubt because they are on low incomes, there is no future in that area for new houses. All those houses were originally ATSIC houses. It is a pity we cannot go to some of the communities towards the great China wall in the Barkly area where many of the ATSIC houses are abandoned. The ATSIC houses were built some years ago and still sit there with no one living in them.
Mr Giles: Never occupied
Mr WOOD: Not occupied. It is a pity they could not be literally …
Mr McCarthy: They were occupied. I lived there for four years.
Mr Giles: Some have never been occupied.
Mr WOOD: But some ..
Mr McCarthy: No, you are wrong.
Mr WOOD: Regardless, they were occupied at some time.
Mr McCarthy: The resource centre was never occupied.
Mr WOOD: Yes, I have been to some of those places, even on the other side of the Territory, where they are abandoned. It is a pity they could not be picked up and used where people want them. But that is another issue.
When talking about housing affordability, and people live in all places - suburbs, growth towns or whatever the new name is for an outstation - and that should be part of this discussion.
To bring it a little closer to home, I would love to know whether you have a policy on covenants. You have housing in your area and everyone has to have a blue, black, green or orange roof, although I notice they are getting rid of those silly colours in a hot climate. However, covenants have a fair bit to do with cost. You must have a particular kind of house otherwise you cannot build there. When you sign your contract there are certain conditions such as you cannot have a hot water system on the roof because it looks ugly or something. I wonder whether the idea of covenants should be looked at. If we are trying to reduce red tape and cost, covenants are something to consider.
I am unsure if they have covenants in Tennant Creek. Good luck to them if they do not, but they have them in Muirhead and Lyons. I bet you two bob Defence Housing does not want to have common things such as a solar hot water systems on the roof. How unbecoming! Yet they cost more money when you have to put them in a different place. I ask the government, if it is looking at ideas for affordability, whether covenants are adding to the cost.
Minister, you took a trip with me around parts of the rural area and have been with the Mayor also. The water pipeline being built to the gaol is huge and has enormous capacity for water. I know where you are thinking of putting the hospital and hope you give some thought to that land near the prison. That could be developed into 1 ha blocks with town water without needing much done.
Obviously it has to go through the planning process, and someone will have to build it, but that land is fairly straightforward. It has infrastructure and a bitumen road that goes right past. It has power going to the prison, it has town water, and 1 ha blocks means you do not need storm water, just a rural road. You could open 100 blocks there before the end of year if you wanted to and they would be affordable because you do not need the same standard of development as you do in Zuccoli. It would give people a choice. Out of 100 blocks you might have 30 for first homeowners and the rest go at market price, or something like that, so you can cover those costs.
There are opportunities; it is your Crown land. You have water supply and electricity going right past. We are desperate for some rural blocks to be developed. I believe the Planning Commission is looking at the forestry land, but there are issues there in relation to whether you can have septic tanks, so that has not quite got off the ground yet.
The other area is Humpty Doo, and you know there is a development that you have to decide on soon about 78 blocks for residents outside the Humpty Doo district centre. I, like other people, do not believe it is appropriate at the moment unless it is in the district centre. You have land within the district centre that has not been developed. We are screaming out for a retirement village, as the member for Goyder will tell you. I could not get the previous government to do it because they said there was not enough infrastructure, it was too costly, and there was not a need for it. They did a survey, but sometimes it depends who you ask when you do a survey, some people fill them in and some do not.
I can tell you, and I believe the member for Goyder would agree, if you put 20 houses there as part of a retirement village complex, they would be gone tomorrow. There are many people in the rural area who want to stay in the rural area. They do not necessarily want to live in Coolalinga, which is a private development. I know you have it in your numbers here, but the 60 blocks is a private development, not a government development. People do not particularly want to live in that style. They would like to have a retirement village where people of a similar age would also like to live.
You have the land, you have upgraded the sewage ponds and no doubt you have done the right thing. I congratulate you for opening up the industrial area in Humpty Doo. There needs to be …
Mr Chandler: A water tower.
Mr WOOD: Yes, that is right. That may have to be part of the planning, or we just give everyone a rain tank. They have come off rural blocks, so they might be all right.
We are desperate. People do not want to live in Tiwi or elsewhere. They want to stay in the rural area. I ask you to give that some consideration. Two areas in which the government could help the rural area with housing are forestry and Humpty Doo.
From a local point of view, you mentioned Sports House. I may have to get an extension.
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move an extension of time for the member to complete his remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: I am interested in what is happening with the sale of Sports House near the Waratah Oval. I have been approached and others have been also. Where did badminton go? There is at least one sporting club, which I have been told has approximately 1000 members. Maybe the minister for Sport could tell us. If you are going to sell it off, will some of the money you get back from selling that valuable parcel of land go to giving these people a home? I am told the government does not seem too interested in what happens to them. Well, too bad. They do not have a place yet, believe it or not, and it is quite a popular sport in Darwin. The shadow minister for Sport probably understands that better than me. A number of people have rang me who are concerned that sport has no future in Darwin because it has does not have a home.
If the government is taking their sporting club home away and selling that parcel of land for probably quite a few million dollars, some of that money could go to building them a new facility at Marrara. There is land at Marrara next to the gymnastics area where there were plans for some type of facility with that grassed area out the front. If you are going to sell that land for housing, at least do something for the people who lose their sporting home, if that is possible.
In summing up, it would be good to hear if you have a definition of what housing affordability is. Is it cheap land, or what? If it is cheap land, how will you achieve cheap land? That has always been a difficulty. You mentioned you have infill, and I received a good briefing from CEO, John Coleman, about what parcels of land you believe you can use throughout the suburbs. The question I ask is, what pressure does that put on existing infrastructure?
One of the big problems in the rural area, and I am not barracking for the rural area to be subdivided, but you could have some limited infrastructure in the rural area at the moment. If you tried to subdivide a couple of streets that had a water pipe down the middle you might find that is inadequate. Who pays for the upgrade of infrastructure? You are doing infill in various places around Darwin. It sounds easy, saying we can put six houses on this vacant parcel of land, but does that process does put any strain on existing infrastructure? Or is it not so many houses that is does not have a major effect? That is one of the things that has to be taken into account, because if you have to upgrade the infrastructure then the houses on those blocks would not be as affordable. I am interested to see whether that is an issue.
I appreciate the statement. We have had plenty of similar statements over the years, minister; you would know that. Housing affordability is a very common topic when sitting on this side. I have yet to see in the Northern Territory, especially around Darwin, what I would call an affordable house. If you can bring the price of housing down, you will have achieved something no other government has been able to do.
Mr STYLES (Infrastructure): Madam Speaker, I support the minister’s statement in relation to housing affordability, and I thank the member for Nelson for raising some very interesting points.
Member for Nelson, you mentioned Aboriginal housing. Currently we are required, under NPARIH, to have a certain style of home in Aboriginal communities.
About six weeks ago I travelled to Canberra for a number of reasons. One of which was to determine if minister Macklin would consider some alternative styles of home that, as a result of our enquiries, we believe Aboriginal people would like to live in. It is interesting when you travel in the bush - I am sure you have - that some Aboriginal people say they want something different to what we are giving them. We tried to give people living in the bush some different designs. For weeks we tried to get an appointment to discuss this issue but the sad thing was that when we went to Canberra, minister Macklin would not see us. There are many people who have alternative designs for homes that can be built far more cheaply than the current slab and block method that some people do not want to live in.
I imagine one day people might want something like that, but at the moment they are asking for something quite different. It was with great regret that I left Canberra not being able to meet with minister Macklin to discuss some very important issues about the design of Aboriginal housing. It would involve anything up to 85% local content of Aboriginal people involved in building these homes. That is sad, because when we talk about capacity building in the remote and regional parts of the Northern Territory, this government is very keen on involving local people to do local things.
There are a number of things being discussed on this side that will benefit local people - an interesting suite of things they can do in relation to things coming out of the Department of Infrastructure. I will not stop. I am hoping that whoever is in government after the next federal election will look at a change in design. I have certainly been assured by Tony Abbott’s team that they will look at the proposals I was trying to talk to minister Macklin about.
You talked about affordable housing. I was recently in Bellamack and I saw house and land packages for under $400 000. I was very impressed with them. They were better than the first house I lived in here in Tiwi. You talked about smaller blocks. It was not a very big block. It certainly was not a very big house. If you put a queen-size bed in the master bedroom you could only just squeeze between the wall and the side of the bed and the wall and the wardrobe. The wardrobe was slightly wider than the desk I am standing at. I kid you not, it was probably only about 200 mm wider than this desk, and that was supposed to be for two adults. The second and third bedrooms were even smaller. It was a concrete box, a Barclay. I am sure it would not go anywhere in a cyclone because it is solid concrete. It was as hot as Hades, but we survived and spent 12 years in that home before we shifted to a place in Nightcliff. My kids grew up in it, and fortunately they had a small area at the side where they could get a cricket bat out. They broke a few windows in the house, but I gladly replaced those.
There are alternatives available. I have a few notes relating to some of the things you said. Retirement villages: as the Minister for Senior Territorians I take great interest in this area and have been talking to many people in relation to ideas. We have been talking to the Planning Commission about how we can put some of these ideas into practice. When we came into government we inherited a mess in Housing and are still trying to sort it out. Sadly, it takes a while to get all these issues on to the table and plan correctly because we want to ensure we continue once we press the start button.
When talking about retirement villages, particularly rural retirement villages, I have been approached with ideas that I like. I have been talking to Mr Coleman about that as well. We have been talking to the Planning Commission and hopefully in the not too distant future we may be able to roll out some great ideas for retirement villages in the rural area. Not just the type of rural living, but affordable rural seniors’ villages. I am glad you raised that and I look forward to being able to give you more information in the near future.
The Planning Commission is looking at many options, and I am sure land trusts is one. People live in caravan parks. There are two caravan parks in my electorate. I doorknock those people fairly regularly. A number of people in one of the caravan parks have built exemplary homes and additions. They probably have nearly as much room as I had in my house in Tiwi. It is amazing that when you look at the front of these places they look just like caravans with a few additions, but when you get inside and out the back you can see they are beautiful homes.
These are not necessarily people on low incomes. The people I am talking about both have professional jobs at Royal Darwin Hospital. They love it. People choose to do this in caravan parks, one reason being security. Caravan parks do not seem to have the same problems as units or houses in close proximity. There is a different set of rules, as you know, and we have had that debate in this Chamber previously.
Mr Wood: I used to have the Sundowner, remember, and it is still empty.
Mr STYLES: Yes, I remember the debate on the Sundowner. There are people who enjoy living in caravan parks. I see many people there who have kids. There are park areas at the front of caravan parks on McMillans Road. I see them playing cricket there all the time. You drive past on the way home and there are kids playing in the big park area at the front.
There are alternatives to getting the four or five bedroom, three bathroom, four car lock-up garage as a new homeowner. I could not afford that so I lived in a three-bedroom unit with three kids for quite some time. It is about what we can afford at the time. However, there are options where people - you need to be on a good single income to do it on your own, but they are out there. We are working on the affordable housing issues you raise, and trying to get people into their own homes.
Once you get people into a decent home, if you can then come up with the scheme where we can help them - we have homebuyer incentives, we have increased the first homebuyer grant from $7000 to $25 000 for buyers purchasing a newly constructed home, and up to $12 000 for existing properties.
I believe the member for Wanguri quoted figures in relation to Labor versus the CLP and the race of houses, etcetera. In December 2011 there were 86 grants for first homebuyers. That equates to approximately 20 fewer grants than what we gave in December 2012.
In December 2011, the ALP government gave 86 grants, in December 2012 the CLP government gave 111. In January 2012 they gave 84 grants, the CLP gave 107. In February 2012, the ALP gave 81 grants, February 2013, we gave 113 grants. We win that game. There are many things happening in relation to that.
Land is too expensive, member for Nelson, I agree with you. I remember sitting on the other side of the House when in opposition trying to tell the government they needed to release more land. I held up a bar graph which showed the 2010, 2011 and 2012 figures.
In approximately 2010 we were looking at 2400 blocks required, and around the 1100 to 1200 mark were turned off. In 2011, about the same number of blocks were required and, from memory, about 900 blocks were turned off. In 2012 - these are rough figures - the same number of blocks was required and only about 590 were turned off.
That is a real problem when looking at the availability of land. Of course, if you take the situation that did occur - and we were warning them - I remember being here in 2008 saying, ‘You need to do this otherwise you are going to have that’. I am not one to say I told you so, but I told you so.
If there are only 100 blocks of land and 200 people, every block of land you sell will be an auction. Someone will want that block of land to build so they will keep paying until somebody runs out of money. That is one block. If you do that for 100 blocks with 200 people, there is an auction on every block of land. If you do not supply the marketplace with sufficient land, the prices will go up.
When that is finished you have 100 people without a block. What are they going to do? They want somewhere to live so they go to the rental market. They go to the rental market and there is an auction on the 50 rental places available. Eventually, we run out of new homes to build, we run out of rental properties. Then people start to live in cars, tents, caravan parks, and they start to crowd into houses.
I recently heard of a place in the northern suburbs where there are 19 people living in a three-bedroom home. I have taken some action to try to find out exactly where that home is because I suspect they are running an illegal boarding home. However, 19 people living in a three-bedroom home with an enclosed area downstairs supposedly charging exorbitant rent.
We have a problem. It is not of our making; we have inherited this mess from the previous Labor government. Its failure to release sufficient land - on those figures, when you look at the amount of blocks required, it was not meeting the target.
These were not our targets, they were the previous government’s targets which they set for themselves and did not meet. Of course we will have an auction on every block of land, rental property and even tent sites, because once you push the price up, the cost of rentals goes up because if it is an investment property, somebody wants a return. People will pay more and more money until they get the property. If you go to the caravan parks and try to get a tent site, it will cost you a fortune.
I have not heard of women and kids living in tents recently, but if you find someone I would like to know because we will try to help them. We helped many people, in the years we were in opposition, to find locations.
I want to raise some things the member for Wanguri said. Kurringal flats - she said we were charging people $400. My understanding is there is a sliding rental scale for people accommodated in Kurringal flats and other public housing. If you earn a certain amount of money you pay the full rental price; if you are earning less than that, then it is a sliding scale. If someone was paying $400 in a flat, perhaps it is because they earn X number of dollars. That is a scale I believe is applied to everyone who is in public housing.
I recall when we were on the other side of the Chamber there were quite a number of vacant public housing homes in the northern suburbs. I think at one stage there were 133 vacant homes sitting idle. I recall two properties in Moil Crescent that we pointed out to the government. One had been vacant for three years, and the other for five years. I hardly think the member for Wanguri can accuse us of destroying public housing …
Mr Giles: She was the advisor for the Housing minister.
Mr STYLES: What was that interjection? The member for Wanguri was the advisor for the Housing minister? That is very interesting. Thank you, Chief Minister, for the interjection. I was not aware of that, but thank you for that interesting information. What was the advisor doing in those days to try to fix the problem of all the vacant homes in the northern suburbs and the houses that had been vacant for three to five years? I find it amazing that the member for Wanguri accuses us of this when all we did is inherit a mess which we have been trying to fix.
Let us talk about planning. The Country Liberals established the Planning Commission, which is an independent authority to develop strategic plans and planning policies to cater for growth. We have to ensure we do this because we have to get it right. There are so many young people depending on us to do that. That is something else I warned the government about. People were coming to my electorate office - and I know many young people in the Northern suburbs having been there for many years. I worked with these young people who were saying, ‘Sorry, Mr Styles, we have to leave town because we cannot afford to live here’. We had to fix that, and we are.
The priority of the Planning Commission is to bring a renewed focus on strategic planning to the Northern Territory. One that enables sustainable growth of our cities and towns as great places to live and ensures that planning reflects the expectations of our community, especially our young people, to develop strategic plans to cater for growth, facilitate infill development and urban renewal through planning controls, and address housing affordability. To do that, we have to cut a lot of red tape.
The government has restructured the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment to implement an improved parallel process for land rezoning and development assessment. Essentially, this means rezoning and subdivision can happen at the same time which significantly speeds up the approval process, ensuring development happens faster. The faster we get it to happen, the less pressure there is on supply, and we can try to contain some of the costs of housing in the Territory, especially for young Territorians.
Let us talk about land release. As I said, Labor failed to release enough land to keep up with demand, and that is why the prices are so high. As a government, we are undertaking an audit of all government-owned land across the Northern Territory and have identified sufficient land for in excess of 3000 dwellings. I find it difficult to believe that since 2008, when we were in opposition, trying to get the government to look at all available options, they did not comb through the Lands department and find this. When we got into government, it was obvious we should go through and find out what was out there. We combed through and have come up with this. This happened a while ago. We are now putting things in place to get this land released.
In Darwin there have been 23 sites identified for a possible 1800 homes. In Katherine we have identified 10 sites for a possible 640 homes; in Tennant Creek, eight sites for a possible 13 homes; and in Alice Springs nine sites for a possible 115 homes. We have been pushing to get the first 20 sites turned off before the end of this year. We are fast-tracking new subdivisions in Palmerston East, Katherine East, and in Kilgariff. The previous government had 11 years to comb through and find those blocks because these are not greenfield sites, these are sites that already have services running past the door. How do you miss that?
Let us look at public housing. Labor were the slumlords of public housing. They let public assets go to ruin, like Moil Crescent. They just let them go and did not bother doing anything about them. Labor let waiting lists get out of control; they got longer under Labor because they failed to manage tenancy properties and build enough new stock.
The Country Liberal government is taking a responsible approach and redeveloping our public housing stock. We are working on redeveloping large complexes …
Ms Walker: I love the way you are praising SIHIP for 953 houses and 1800 Indigenous employment places.
Mr STYLES: You do not want to go to SIHIP, member for Nhulunbuy.
Ms FINOCCHIARO: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I seek an extension of time for the member, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STYLES: It is interesting that they try to distract speakers in this House because they are ashamed of their record.
We are about redeveloping large complexes. I will go to SIHIP soon, because that was a disgrace under the former ALP government. What an absolute mess that was. The houses costing an fortune, cost overruns, $145m for consultation. What a joke. But anyway, I digress.
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Clearly the minister has not seen the media release by his colleague saying it is a fantastic program.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order, sit down. You have the call, minister.
Ms Walker: 953 houses, 1800 Indigenous people trained.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Nhulunbuy.
Mr STYLES: That is because we got on with it and cleaned up your mess. That is what we have done.
We are working to reduce concentrations of disadvantage. We will be encouraging community renewal through a better mix of housing types and affordable housing opportunities that meet current and future housing requirements. We will provide better housing for our senior populations and give the member for Nelson a pile of alternatives for rural seniors accommodation. We will build strong and integrated communities, including environmentally sensitive design standards, and get the best value for government assets by working in partnership with the private sector.
Let us go on to remote housing, my favourite subject apparently. Under the National Partnership Agreement for Remote Indigenous Housing, the department achieved its targets of 934 new houses and 2915 refurbishments and rebuilds under challenging circumstances. The challenging circumstances are the mess and cost overruns the ALP government left for us, but we have taken the game and we have got on with it. We have fixed many of those problems, and we are still fixing them. This has come at a cost. We remain concerned that more houses could have been built or fixed had better planning and delivery methodologies been applied.
Mr Chandler: Bring up AMS.
Mr STYLES: Do not go to the Asset Management System: a $14m project that is going to cost $70m. Let us talk about the wave pool. How many millions of dollars of overrun did that have? It is just another example of the pathetic planning and the lack of attention the previous government paid to not just this but so many other projects it had under its control. This project failed in the beginning due to the incompetent Labor governments in both the Territory and Canberra, and we are now playing catch up. I am glad they have raised it.
The Territory has 16 of the nation’s remote service delivery priority sites, 73 communities and Alice Springs and Tennant Creek town camps to service, covering about 5000 dwellings and up to 40 000 remote Indigenous tenants.
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Relevance: 113. I ask the minister to table the document he is reading from.
Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. It is not relevant, either.
Mr STYLES: Thank you, Madam Speaker. We have delivered at around treble the pace of Western Australia and Queensland. We will be lobbying for governance arrangements to revert to those in place with other jurisdictions, and for responsibility of the program management to rest with the Northern Territory for the remainder of this program.
We will ensure there are alternative delivery models in place which will reduce overhead costs, maximise local employment and community engagement, and increase the actual spending on construction and refurbishment.
It is timely to remind the members opposite that it is their mates in Canberra who will not allow us to change some of the designs in the Territory that would see anything up to 80% to 85% Aboriginal labour component in the construction of these homes. There are a number of systems that can do that. I do not think Labor ever looked at it. When they were in government and they had their mates in government in Canberra, perhaps they could have done a deal. Their mates in Canberra will not even talk to us about delivering more houses with a greater involvement of Aboriginal people. That is an appalling situation. The members in opposition, especially those who were ministers in the previous government, could have had an opportunity to do that.
We are focused on improving opportunities for local Indigenous business enterprises, and there are some very good local Indigenous enterprises. Job opportunities for Aboriginal people at the local level are essential to addressing disadvantage and improving the livelihood of Indigenous people living in communities.
I get on to Real Housing for Growth, a truly innovative project. I congratulate my colleague, the member for Brennan, the Minister for Housing. With Real Housing for Growth we will deliver an additional 2000 new affordable homes throughout the Northern Territory over the next four years. That is probably more than these people delivered in total.
This project is attractive to developers and investors, and will also meet the needs of Territory renters. Property owners will have rent guarantees secured through 10-year head leases from the government. Renters will only pay 70% of the market rent, with the government meeting the difference. Currently, the government is finalising negotiations for over 150 new homes in the Darwin area, approximately 170 new homes in Palmerston, 60 at Coolalinga, and a further 50 for Tennant Creek and Katherine.
This government is about giving some of these people who struggle a real opportunity to get into affordable accommodation. We are on track to deliver over 3000 blocks of land so we can build homes, units, and duplexes and all the other things the opposition is calling for, especially the member for Nelson. He is also asking for more in the rural area. We will have some at Coolalinga which will meet some of the demand in that area.
We have struggled to overcome some of the legacies left to us by the previous ALP government. Not only have we been left with a $5.5bn debt to deal with, and trying to get our spending down to what we earn, we have been struggling to understand how they got into the messes we were left with. How did the former government get to that point? Who was responsible for getting it to that point? Today I do not have time left to go into that. If I pressed that button we could be here all night talking about what was and was not done to fix some of the problems we face today.
Madam Speaker, I can assure you the CLP government cares about people in the bush and we will be looking at every opportunity and option we can to not only get houses built in the bush but to involve local people, to not only get people housed in our town areas but also in our rural and remote areas. We will attempt to get the show on the road as soon as we can.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I rise to critique the minister’s statement. There have been so many statements. It has been interesting to see them coming on in these sittings, one after another. A statement is a good opportunity to debate policy with the government. Now, as an opposition member, I have a different way of doing things and I want to debate that way with the government which has the numbers to do whatever they like. I will refrain from reading the minister’s statement back to him and will critique the statement.
The statements, I have noticed over the past couple of days, are highly politicised with less input from the public sector. The language and sentiments are all about failures, and victim and blame rhetoric. They are obviously not coming from hard-working public sector employees but from political advisors.
That is okay, but it is not really providing the opportunity to sell the government message. It is not providing the opportunity to tell the Territory exactly what this new government is doing. When I say ‘new government’, I use it liberally because you guys will have your first birthday cake in a matter of days. That means 12 months in government, but we still have rhetoric about blame and, ‘We cannot do this, we cannot do that’. We say, ‘Tell us what you can do’, but that does not appear in these statements either.
We are talking about the blame game but we are not seeing anything new. We will talk about the members putting on the public record their hard-earned facts about Labor refusing to release land and blah, blah, blah! Territorians know the truth because they have been living in the Territory. The previous government was on a plan, working through a process, then an election changed all that. But it did not all change. The 2000 units were approved for the CBD when the previous government went to the finance sector and convinced southern bankers that Darwin and Palmerston were different kettles of fish. When money started to be released, when the presale commitments were reduced, when the developer had the cash, then the cranes appeared on the skyline, and the average Territorian knows that. Tell us about that! I am interested to see that roll-out and to see what is new.
When we talk about the 4000 lots of land in the pipeline, that is the reality. This government has inherited 4000 lots in the pipeline, but they crashed that plan and policy. They changed it to what they want to do. That is what new governments do, but there was a pipeline. The plan was there and the process was under way, but the 2012 election came along and the game changed considerably.
When we talk about the Darwin CBD, Palmerston, Palmerston East, the University land and the CIC/CDU partnership, the private sector in Muirhead and Coolalinga, Katherine, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs, Mount Johns Valley, Larapinta, the new drive-in site, the Melanka site, we look at what was happening. Now the new minister is in the saddle. Does he have a brumby or a thoroughbred? This is the question because the challenge with Melanka in Alice Springs - there is a private development, you guys are into private developments, how are you going to support that?
As the previous minister, I was conducting the debate around the Alice Springs CBD, raising the height levels. I congratulate the Chief Minister for continuing that debate in his home town, because, as a government, you need to drive initiatives to get these developments to step out of the ground. I want to see a statement that tells me what you are doing about that. I want to read and debate new initiatives, but I am just getting infill of cellulose listed on paper that is not really moving the debate forward. We are stuck.
If the minister wants to be a grown up, bring it on and let us hear what you are doing. Let us hear about lot numbers, minister. I encourage you, as I have before, to look at affordability. You are in an exciting portfolio and should travel and research, but most of that work has been done. It is in the department, and the greater Darwin plan is there. I know you are using it, and so you should. It is good work, done by the public sector. Now you have the exciting opportunity to roll it out and deliver for Territorians. Do not be frightened to push all the levers.
This is where I will debate with the member for Nelson. Look at smaller lot sizes, at alternative housing design, at the principles of modern urbanism, at car parking spaces in unit developments. Look at all those initiatives that can be applied to the Northern Territory to deliver affordability.
I was pushing in, and the department has this on record because they do the work, about housing materials. The member for Sanderson talked about different styles and materials in the bush. Let us hear about them. Let us debate rammed earth products in remote communities and hear about tilt slabs in remote communities. Let us debate it, but not go around in circles with this same old rhetoric, the blame and somebody is at fault and the rest of it. We want to hear something new.
You are a new government, rise to the occasion, grow up, and give us all these ideas. Tell the Territory the story, and feel good about it because I remember what it was like. By jingo, it was an exciting job, and the day could be coming when I might have it back. I am doing the best I can, do not worry about that!
We look at this statement and talk about the political rhetoric clouding a good opportunity to tell a story. The minister wants to give me the big slap about the Tennant Creek land use framework plan sitting around gathering dust. What a lot of rot! The dust was on my boots, mate, and the work you will see in the department was rolling out, not only the Tennant Creek plan, where we had done heaps of work, but the Katherine plan and all the plans for the growth towns. In Angurugu and Umbakumba you start to see that transition from area plans to land use plans; starting to normalise development so everything can come together.
What I loved about that work, when I used to go to the department regularly and see it rolling out, was there was no dust, there were people who were frantic. There was so much work going on in that department, planning for the Territory. There were special things like ceremonial grounds on an area plan. I had never seen that before. I discussed it with my colleagues. I knew what a ceremonial ground was, then I talked to architects, engineers, and urban planners. I said, ‘Check this out, this is the Territory’, and they were thrilled. That was work.
Your minister wants to slap me. The minister’s big scoring punch, ‘Tennant Creek land use plan had dust on it’. What a load of rot! It was part of the process that is still going on and the work that is being conducted. I hope you continue that work, including duplicating Brown Street to create the new industrial area of Tennant Creek, instead of the two blocks you mentioned at estimates. I know the two blocks you are talking about and you have problems with that machinery being located there. That contractor is going broke because there is no work. They want to be able to create that subdivision. You can do very innovative things, minister, and I encourage you to continue on that road to be innovative and come into this House and tell me the story.
The land use plans, the greater Darwin plan, the growth town plans were all rolling out. Then the August 2012 election changed that game. And did it what! You remind me regularly about that. That is life and the people decided. However, in a democracy there is always the chance of a comeback.
The minister entered into some good debate. ‘The priorities of the Planning Commission are’, then it was the focus of infill. You have considerably changed the game. You are going hand-in-hand with the private sector. That is a policy, let us debate it. Let us debate working with the private sector, because when you are releasing Crown land and really getting into investing in headworks infrastructure, you are trying to keep down the price of a serviced lot of land. You are spending taxpayers’ money on taxpayers’ land to reduce the cost of a serviced lot of land. That is government’s job and responsibility.
When you jump in with the private sector and start to use taxpayers’ money to make the private sector more money, then taxpayers will have something to say because there is a big difference. If a developer is going to make megabucks and I tell them I am going to use taxpayers’ money to help get this out of the ground, to ensure it is fast-tracked to deliver my political rhetoric, then the taxpayer will say, ‘Hang on a minute, this is the private sector here. They are going to make big profits’. We have to be careful about how much taxpayers’ money you give to the private sector to make their own money, which they put in their own bank account.
This will be interesting to watch. This is something new. We worked with private developers as well. But when private developers came to me and said, ‘Government should build the water main that will cost $5.8m to support my development’, as a new minister, I took that to government and said, ‘Hey, if we build this developer’s water main for $5.8m to get this industrial land out quicker, it will be a great outcome’. Government said to me, ‘Well, pull up, minister, you are new in the game. Go back and have a think about this. That is a private developer, the water main is worth $5.8m, taxpayers cannot contribute to that water main purely for that private developer. But, if we can integrate that water main into other areas of development, specifically Crown land, then we can work together.’
You guys are going down this road. It is an interesting road. It focuses on infill development. You are targeting serviced lots of land, but remember they are owned by the private sector and we want to know how much taxpayers’ money you will be investing in the private sector. Then, unfortunately, because you have a bit of skin in the game, as the Chief Minister likes to say, we will be watching your mates very carefully. We will be watching jobs for the boys and doing deals with your mates very carefully, because that is what an opposition does, as that is how democracy works. Let us hope, we have good stories coming back and there is no more of this clouded grey area that causes confusion in the democracy.
The minister talked about the Enquiry by Design process and basically slagged it off. I am disappointed because I know the member for Nelson participated in that and there were scores of Territorians, not only in Darwin, but also in Alice Springs. We did the design of Kilgariff and set the suburb up through the inquiry by design process, which is a principle of new modern urbanism that brings the people along with you. It is not like that report I was reading from today that said Aboriginal people do not like to be consulted after the decision is made. Guess what? Constituents do not like to be consulted after the development has been approved. They like to go with the process, and that is what inquiry by design delivers. If you look at all the work that was done for Weddell, that is a really good example of the principles of modern urbanism. The Alice Springs cohort reported back the same as the Darwin and Palmerston cohort. ‘This is the new way to go; we like it.’ Guess what? You get creative new ideas that we brought into this House to debate, stuff I want to hear from you.
I am really disappointed that the minister has used this statement to cloud it with political rhetoric to slag off what is an innovative process, and by the way is being used in all the other jurisdictions around the country. Because you will find very soon that if you go stomping around in a planning area and upset constituents, then you will pay dearly at the ballot box, because urban planning is about including everyone.
The statement talks about the lots, not quite lot numbers. It talks about Tennant Creek: 8 sites, 13 dwellings. Minister, I am sorry but yesterday in Question Time you got a little hot under the collar when I was challenging you and you spat out all these numbers. From the Hansard record from yesterday, you said there were about 20 units in Tennant and ‘… another site in Tennant Creek but I cannot talk about at the moment’. In the statement today, there are only 13 in Tennant Creek. I am not quite sure what happened, but we will probably have that cleared up. You could clear that up in an adjournment debate because there is a discrepancy. Maybe it was the heat of Question Time or your burning ambition to slap me and try to make a fool of me because I am a bad communist. We can live with that on this side. Let us get it right, because I have to tell this story to the people at Tennant Creek and the Barkly. Is it 20 or is it 13? We will work that out; I am hoping you will be able to clear it up.
I do like the story of, ‘I cannot tell you about the other lot of land’. I bet your bottom dollar it is the old drive-in site. That is a classic example of a privately-owned lot of land. The owner of that land wanted it developed, and I wanted it developed because I was doing 54 lots of land on the other side of the road that sold in two land releases, straight up. Now there are multiple dwellings going up. We have single dwellings, and a subdivision emerging in Tennant Creek, the first land release in 30 years.
I wanted to help that private developer of the block over the road. However, I got bogged down because he wanted taxpayers’ money to put on headworks services. He said, ‘If you give me the money’ – government money, taxpayers’ money – ‘we can fast-track this and get it out of the ground and everything will be apples’. Unfortunately, I had to say, ‘Sorry, I cannot do that. I cannot spend taxpayers’ money on that private land to support your profits, but let us continue to talk about what we can do.’
You guys are going down this road. The minister has some secretive block he cannot talk about. I put on the public record that I bet you it is the old drive-in site. I hope to see that site developed. It is a great opportunity for Tennant Creek. As the opposition, we will be watching very closely how this minister does it because we are accountable to all taxpayers in the Northern Territory.
The minister talked about Berrimah Farm, which I support. I want to hear more about Berrimah Farm. That will be a golden opportunity and will be very good land. I agree with the member for Nelson; there has to be a mixed mode development there. There has to be some commercial and some residential.
What the minister forgot to mention in this statement was Mitchell, the suburb which runs parallel with Zuccoli. The minister knows about Zuccoli because the previous government master-planned it, and set up Stage One. I congratulated the minister for appropriating $20m of taxpayers’ money for Crown land at Zuccoli to partner up with a developer to deliver the best possible price for land and get the industry stimulated and moving along at Zuccoli. The suburb in parallel is Mitchell, which has amazing opportunities, once again, to deliver land.
It does not appear in the statement. I do not know why. If you had knocked out a couple of those paragraphs that were simply put in to try to score political points and slap that bad little communist from Barkly, then maybe you could have talked about Mitchell. Mitchell will have some constraints near the mouth of the creek. What we were doing - you have the plan and probably know all about this; I hope you do but you did not tell us. There were going to be larger lots.
Lynne, I am enjoying myself so much and the minister is back, I should continue ...
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request an extension of time for my colleague.
Motion agreed to.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, colleagues on this side. I am sorry I am not so welcome on the other side, but this is a House of debate.
The suburb of Mitchell has some very interesting challenges which are all about biting insects and drainage, and the Friends of Mitchell Creek, a community group which is very active in this space. These are the stakeholders and community representatives I talk about. This is the inquiry by design process, the process of inclusion where you get the best results and avoid a lot of grief, minister. You avoid a lot of grief if you take the people with you. Mitchell is a very good opportunity for some innovative lands planning and development. Take the stakeholders with you.
In the constrained land around biting insects and with the drainage issues you obviously have to go to larger lots. Look at alternative products and opportunities for housing there, and look at some medium-density housing further up in the better areas. Look at that more rural style down into more of the constrained land, and bring the story back and tell us about it. Let us hear about the new suburb of Mitchell. Let us see budget appropriations for the new suburb of Mitchell, because that leads me to Weddell.
There was very little use in government investing in a subdivision which would grow weeds. The greater Darwin plan spells it out very carefully. There are great demographics, great maps, great urban planning principles exposed there, but it says the capacity of Palmerston East will be taken up over the next five to 10 years.
Weddell has to be started well before that. That is why we put a target on getting into Weddell of 2014-15. In 2014 you would be at the Cabinet table seriously boxing on with the Treasurer to get the funds to start the real dirt kicking at Weddell. In the meantime, Palmerston East will fill to capacity. When that capacity is taken up, you have a new area with a capacity of 3000 more lots ready to roll.
The minister, during estimates, told me, ‘I do not like that plan. I am going out the other way. I am going to Glyde Point.’ I said, ‘Minister, why go to Glyde Point when you are appropriating $15m to complete what Labor started?’ It was a Labor commitment to get the headworks infrastructure into the Middle Arm peninsula, which goes right past the new inquiry by design master plan suburb of Weddell. It is not a suburb minister, it is a city. It will be a new city, but we will continue to have that debate.
There was no mention of Mitchell, or capacity in Palmerston East, or mention of the rural village plans you have under your brief. Of course, there was no mention of Weddell.
There was a paragraph in the statement, minister, which concerned me. It said the government has restructured the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment. You certainly did, but what saddened me was you guys sacked some of the best intellect in the Territory in the area of lands, planning and delivering modern urbanism. Those guys were rolling out the door on almost the first day you took over. It really saddened me. It was all about cost cutting, trying to save money, changing the game and getting your values into it. It was sad to see the intellectual capital that went out the door.
The minister talked about dusty land use plans he found. That is a lot of rot. He read it because a political advisor wrote it. That intellectual capital were some of the most advanced thinkers in Territory lands, panning and environment that I ever had the opportunity to work with. You have lost a lot of dynamics in that department, and you will need to look at ensuring you renew that through your policy.
Tell us about the Planning Commission. Give us more information in this House about the Planning Commission and the work it is doing. Give me your classic one-liner, ‘Seek a briefing’. Certainly, minister. I live 1100 km away and I am travelling through every electorate I can, telling stories about all of you. As soon as I can get back to this wonderful capital, I would like a briefing and to pace with you, and support you where I can, in relation to the Planning Commission.
Two last things, minister. Kilgariff, the rubbish written in the statement is quite embarrassing, but let us talk real. Let us talk man to man about Kilgariff because the last time I was there it still had the traffic barrier and there was nothing happening. You know you have hit the wall because you have major challenges. We talked about Melanka, the drive-in site and Mount Johns Valley. These places are ready to roll as well. In Kilgariff you found out the hard way that it is now about attracting a developer and working with them to deliver affordable land.
When I was in the process of working on developing Kilgariff, we put in approximately $18m by the end of the spend in setting up what you now have as your little portfolio - all the headworks this statement tells me you are putting in.
When we got to that stage, it was the now Chief Minister who was slagging me off in media and running me down every chance he got because he is good at that. He was saying, ‘This guy does not know what he is doing. It is going to be $250 000, $350 000 a lot at Kilgariff.’ He ran me down to the ground, barked and carried on, and everybody picked up on it. The conversation went around and around and I said, ‘Pull up, slow down. We have not even engaged a developer yet.’ This is where you will go into those areas of housing affordability, creative products, new innovations, and different building materials. It was all done under the inquiry by design process.
Do not lose that corporate knowledge and those values that were Alice Springs Territorian values. Do not lose the kudos we built up with the residents of the rural area in Alice Springs and the environmental and greens groups, because it is not easy trust to get back. When you rubbish inquiry by design, remember there are some very important elements there. I look forward to hearing about Kilgariff. I go past regularly and I am looking forward to seeing some dirt turning at Kilgariff.
The statement is silent about housing on remote homelands and outstations. The member for Namatjira will jump in this debate to update the House on home ownership and Homelands Extra. We are really looking forward to that because it sits with the principle of what the opposition is all about. We are a good team, a Labor family, well referenced, we do our research, and present clear policy alternatives. We want to hear from the member for Namatjira. No doubt, she is collecting her notes out the back or in her office. We would love to hear from the member for Namatjira about what is happening in homelands and outstations. The member for Nelson touched on it, but we want to hear it from the member for Namatjira. I look forward to that, as will my colleagues on this side of the House.
The minister and the member for Sanderson talked about a very important point: engaging local communities in the work. I was at Ramingining the other day and 27 houses are being built. A barge landing road is being built. The place will be flat out. That little remote town will be turned inside out. I was racing around the town for two days asking, ‘Who has a job? Who will be working on the roads? Who will be building the houses?’ They are talking about it. Do not let them off the hook, minister. Minister for Construction, do not forget them. That will be sensational. It was all done, ready to roll; it is signed, sealed and delivered and now we have to get the locals involved. When the locals are involved in real jobs and wages, it will deliver real outcomes. I want to hear that story. You can tell us all about it in your next statement. Thanks for the opportunity of making comment.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Mr Deputy Speaker, by crikey, that is going to be a hard act to follow.
I thank the Minister for Housing for his statement. I speak in support of this government’s integrated approach to housing affordability. I touched this morning on the urgent state of housing in my electorate of Katherine: urgent because of the lack of planning by the former Labor government. We have the pressures of agriculture and horticultural industry expansion, additional Defence Force facilities at Tindal, major projects such as Mount Todd, Western Desert Resources and Sherwin Iron, mines such as the Australian Ilmenite Resources and the Maude Creek project. All will see Katherine as a major supply hub.
Land release and housing issues have been a constant problem in Katherine for many years. No planning was done by the former government. I will put that in context. There was a lot of planning done for the growth of housing and land release in Katherine. It was done, not by the former government, but by the government before: the CLP government. In those early years, the CLP produced a number of Katherine planning documents and identified and released Katherine East.
Katherine East was put together many years ago as a result of the need for Katherine to grow. Sadly, even though there was land made available through the Katherine East subdivision, and all the native title clearances were done, there was very little done by the former Labor government to continue with the program of land release to allow Katherine to continue to grow. I said this morning that the former Labor government had allowed Katherine to stagnate. That is true.
We promoted the need for careful thought and strategy when we launched the 2010 Planning for Greater Darwin discussion paper, with the comment that regional land use plans were urgently required for all our major centres. Nothing was done by the former government. A year ago we won government. Within five months, the legislation was in place and the Planning Commission was established. By mid-year, the 78-page consultation paper towards a Katherine land use plan had been launched.
The feedback from our four community forums is being collated as I speak. I am very pleased to advise the House that I made a number of submissions to the Planning Commission, directly to the Chairperson, Gary Nairn, about some of the issues I thought were critically important for Katherine and should be considered beyond this consultation paper.
Those submissions that came in from the forums are being summarised. I understand that the final draft land use plan will be with the minister by the end of October. I take the time now to pay credit to the Planning Commissioner and the Planning Commission for the work being done to further the growth of land and housing in the Katherine region, in consideration of all the issues that will affect our growth into the future.
This approach could not be more different from that of the former Labor government which was notorious for delaying development to match economic growth with housing and overlooking the needs of projects to be matched by residential choice and affordability of housing. Instead, they actively caused delays, developments were affected by changed rules and now they have the gall to claim that within one year of government, new homes should have been provided.
Their naivety is astonishing. The whole process from plans to DCA, from approvals to securing financing, from pre-sales to completion of construction, can take five years. I believe I mentioned that earlier today. If they were serious about affordable housing in 2013, they would and should have ensured that projects happened. But only now do we see cranes back on the skyline because of this government’s efforts to support the growth of housing and release of land in the Northern Territory.
Housing and land sales are vital elements to support economic development and population growth. The Territory has a history and reputation of being a drawcard destination for workers with high levels of workforce participation of nearly 75% for all workers, almost 80% for men, and 10 percentage points above the national average. Combine that with our trend in unemployment rates, which has historically been much lower than our competitors interstate. These conditions have generally delivered structurally higher wages and higher expenses than other places like Tasmania, which has been an economic backwater for years due to poor Labor government policies, and South Australia, which has suffered as well.
In the Territory, the demand for workers has been strong in the last few years of the mining boom. It has always been strong for Territory and Commonwealth Public Servants, and it will continue to be strong under this government as our policies around the key economic drivers come into effect. That is where the growth needs to come from: the government policy settings around key economic drivers which provide for businesses to grow and expand and for people to become further employed.
The previous Labor government failed to alleviate or address these pressures and, most critically, failed to invest in our stock of affordable public housing. When dealing with the private market, the previous government decided it would add fuel to the fire of the cost of owning a home. It implemented and supported, well past their viability, home ownership schemes that created excessive demand without adequate supply.
One of the first issues brought forward by the Territory Treasury was regarding house prices. When we sought advice about appropriate strategies to move on within the December mini-budget of last year, was the fact that government was effectively cross-subsidising some home owners to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars in interest payments, and upwards of hundreds of thousands of dollars in capital. This was seen by us as unsustainable when we had public housing projects in disrepair, a declining public housing stock, waiting lists stretching, and a budget deficit and debt blow out.
The dilemma is how to help those in genuine need afford their own home or simply to be able to rent accommodation, while, on the other hand, managing programs designed to help people who needed a hand into housing. They did that, but at the same time they pushed up the price of houses.
The question of housing affordability needed a multipronged attack. Firstly, the blockages to future housing supply, starting on the longest lead time project with the utmost priority. Land release was derailed by the former Labor government, causing critical shortage. Projects were announced, but never delivered. As the Housing minister said previously, we committed to an audit of all government-owned land across the Northern Territory, so far identifying sufficient land for in excess of 3000 dwellings. I have no idea why the former government never went down that path. Their laziness and ineptitude are on display for all to see.
Darwin, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs are all to be beneficiaries of this plan to unlock land. We are pushing to get the first 20 sites. Not 20 blocks, but 20 sites that are a part of delivering those 3000 dwellings and getting them turned off before the end of the year. We are finalising negotiations for over 150 new homes in the Darwin area, over 170 new homes in Palmerston, 60 at Coolalinga, and a further 50 for Tennant Creek and Katherine.
Next was addressing the pressure on housing costs. We rolled back the excessively generous terms of the previous government’s assistance package and brought in much tighter controls which focus on supporting new construction, rather than funding the purchase and sale of existing housing stock at ever increasing prices.
Having an affordable housing strategy that claimed that a house costing $750 000 was an affordable home was not just a joke, it was an affront to all Territorians. Our HomeBuild Access provides two loan packages: a low deposit loan and a subsidised interest loan. Purchase price limits Territory-wide are $550 000 for homes with three or more bedrooms and $475 000 for homes with one or two bedrooms. It replaced two previous NT government loan schemes: My New Home, and HOMESTART Extra. HomeBuild Access is a fiscally responsible loan package, ‘fiscally responsible’ being the operative words. It does not require the Territory to enter into excessive borrowings to deliver. It stimulates new supply at a more affordable level, thereby lessening market pressure for rentals. It minimises market distortions and is least cost to government and Territory taxpayers, with lower subsidies provided only to those in need for a limited period of time.
Supply of affordable homes at a rate the market can absorb is the key to stable, long-term prices and growing residential capacity. It is also the pause to allow wages to catch up to rents and for average rents to stabilise, even retreat as other more affordable options come onto the market like unit developments and densification. It has just taken time and some political will.
We have seen what happens when poorly-focused governments take on housing projects, like what happened with the remote Indigenous housing program. The project failed in the beginning due to incompetent Labor governments in both the Territory and Canberra, and we are now playing catch up.
Our government is spending on improved housing standards by monitoring the construction of new housing and existing dwelling refurbishments in town camps. We are committed to refurbishing and redeveloping public housing stock so we maintain the underlying safety net for the most disadvantaged: those who cannot get on the property ownership ladder, and especially those who cannot compete for rental accommodation in the commercial market. In doing the best for our most disadvantaged, we are ensuring the system is fair by working with those people occupying public housing on terms and conditions that today would make them ineligible for public support.
As part of the December 2012 mini budget, it was announced that ineligible urban public housing tenants would be required to pay Australian Valuation Office assessed market rents, or 30% of income, from 1 July 2013. Ineligible tenants had been paying an artificially low public housing rent as a result of a 2006 decision to cap market rent increases to $20 per year. This effectively meant that, in many instances, ineligible tenants were paying a lower proportion of their income in rent to Territory Housing than eligible tenants. Go figure. It also resulted in a loss of valuable income needed to support repairs and maintenance of public housing dwellings.
We are attacking the long-term cost of housing by ensuring the release of land stocks and increased housing construction that meets population growth. We have wound back programs that are fiscally irresponsible and contributed to the surge in house prices.
We are not supporting schemes that say a $750 000 house is affordable, but we are supporting new home construction. We are delivering on public housing investment and ensuring those on the waiting list are not being kept out because of unfair allocation of housing stock. We are delivering on affordable housing, and I thank the minister for his statement.
Ms LEE (Arnhem): Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to make a few statements and highlight a number of points on remote housing as they affect my constituents in the seat of Arnhem.
First, the priorities of the Planning Commission need to reflect strategic planning for remote housing and infrastructure as a major priority.
Second, there needs to be a public inquiry into the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing. We need an investigation into the costs associated with this program, and its outcome and targets need to be the subject of that investigation: an investigation that is open and transparent to the people of Australia, particularly to the Indigenous people of the Northern Territory.
What needs to be the focus of our government in the NT with respect to remote strategic planning and infrastructure development is to make it clear how remote disadvantage will be tackled with practical explanations to achieve the desired outcomes.
Expenditure on Indigenous remote programs needs to be oversighted by an independent body reporting back to government about the money trail.
Indigenous affairs has always been an industrial affair for others, meaning employment and business opportunities. No matter which area of public life you look at, whether it is education, health or other service delivery issues, the matters and the list goes on. In this case, housing and infrastructure development has been a free-for-all. The intended recipients, the Indigenous people of the Northern Territory, have largely been ripped off, which ultimately deceives the Australian people about taxpayers’ money being used for these purposes.
The significant amount of public funds poured into Indigenous disadvantage does not get down to the ground in order to make a real difference. It has to stop, and public accountability needs to be the focus. No comparable public expenditure program could possibly get away with financial abuse of administration of this magnitude.
I am happy to see we are cutting red tape for planning purposes to speed up development of land. This will have a positive effect on the development of remote communities as we move forward to town leases. I am also happy to see a focus on improving opportunities for local Indigenous business enterprises and employment of local Indigenous people through this program. Job opportunities for Indigenous people at a local level are essential to addressing disadvantage and improving the livelihood of Indigenous people living in communities.
I am happy to see the home buying incentives and how these would apply to Indigenous people who wish to purchase their own home. That is something Indigenous people have been talking about. The majority of them had to move into towns and regional centres because they can no longer live in communities or homelands and purchase their own home. That legislation needs to be looked at through the federal government. The Labor government has again, as it has many times in the past, let Indigenous people down on moving forward.
Mr Deputy Speaker, 12 years of neglect by the former Labor government of the Northern Territory - surprising no one is in here to listen to this - at last will be addressed. We still have a lot to do with respect to overcoming Indigenous disadvantage, but I am proud to say I am part of a new government that is showing it cares and is addressing these issues.
Mr CHANDLER (Housing): Mr Deputy Speaker, first, I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate. There will always be a difference in ideology in much of what we do. A lot of rhetoric has come from the opposition in regard to things they know a lot about, particularly in processes, and in listening to the former minister for Lands and Planning. He, of all people, knows how long it can take to get things done and get processes through.
What we have done in the past 12 months to achieve the number of changes and improvements within the department structures and our processes is remarkable. What we have achieved in Housing in the last 12 months is amazing. I truly appreciate the contributions from both sides of the House, because if you were to read Hansard at a later date, even through some of the rhetoric there are some good ideas. I will go back to a couple of points people have made.
The member for Nelson, Mr Wood, asked me to look at covenants. He is right in some regard; covenants have added, like another layer of bureaucracy does, additional costs to many developments across the Territory. With some, you can understand why you want to protect people’s investments, in other areas some of them are bizarre. It is something I am willing to look at.
Looking at the prison road, which the member for Nelson quite rightly pointed out - I took a tour around the Litchfield area with him. I also took a tour with Allan McKay, Mayor of Litchfield, along with the Planning Commissioner, Mr Gary Nairn, who has been doing a remarkable job since he has taken on the role.
For me, the Planning Commission provides that level of accountability. We are being accused from the Labor side that we do not seem to be open and accountable, and that we are just working with developers who are close friends or something like that. I feel sorry for the former minister. I get the impression he did not have any friends. That is something the Planning Commission can do for a government. It is like keeping things at a distance, just like we have an independent EPA today.
I have been accused again, by the former Labor government, that Bill was given the job because he was a mate of mine. I can honestly say with my hand on my heart that I had never met Bill Freeland before. He is doing a remarkable job within the Environment Protection Authority. They are turning the EPA into something truly independent of government, so much so that I can never tell him what to do. He does it his own way. It does not matter what I say, he will do it Bill’s way. In some regard that is what truly indicates to me that the EPA is independent from my hand and from this government, and that is what we really need to protect our environment.
In that walk around we did get some dust down our boots, member for Barkly. But around Litchfield we looked at a number of sites, industrial as well as potential housing development sites. We looked at the road along the prison and there are some good ideas. There are many areas that have potential there.
With the Humpty Doo Village Centre, I am happy to look at those areas. My understanding though, is there is a bit of constraint at the moment with the level of development around the Humpty Doo Village area. It would require some major infrastructure in regard to new water tank facilities. Of course, that can all be overcome. I have this philosophy that with every challenge there is opportunity and every problem can be solved some way or another. If you talk to enough engineers they will tell you just about anything can be solved.
The seniors village is a good idea. We can always do more for our seniors in the Northern Territory, to attract seniors and keep ours here, instead of them moving south.
The other thing the member for Nelson raised was Sports House. I will certainly talk with the minister for Sports, Mr Conlan, about badminton. Look at the oval at the back of Kurringal. Sports House is a remarkable piece of land and we have to be very careful how we leverage and use it. We are really working in that space at the moment.
I was disappointed, however, in the approach taken by the member for Barkly in the blame game. The reality is that it does get a bit tiring when you have missiles being fired from one side of this Chamber to the other. Through all of it, often there are some good ideas that come through. He mentioned the height levels around the CBD, and I am certainly interested in looking at the restrictions the mighty metres play.
Personally, I think the market should drive building heights. Building heights should not be driven by some piece of legislation, or whether it is a binding agreement somewhere of 90 m. I know it has background with Defence, but I am seeking to find where in the law it actually limits us from going beyond 90 m in the CBD. My vision for the CBD is that we look at reducing the footprints on every block but allow the market to dictate how high we go.
At the moment with land being so expensive, developers try to take up the entire footprint to get a return on their investment. I would rather see that footprint reduced and major gaps between buildings to allow a landscape, trees to be grown, thoroughfares, views to continue, breezes to pass through and cool our city. Also for pedestrians to have access, not just to walk around the streets, but between buildings and under trees that could be lit at night. You could transform this city, but you can only do it if you can give not only certainty, but also the ability for investors to receive return on their investment.
At the moment, they are taking up entire footprints and we will be left with concrete walls in front of us when there is a better way of doing it. I am glad the member for Barkly raised height level, no pun intended.
Smaller lot sizes, he is right again. You will always have arguments from certain sectors that think we should have 800 m blocks or 1000 m blocks across the Territory, and that we cannot have anything smaller than that. We have to position our houses at such an angle to get the prevailing breezes. In a perfect world, that would be a lovely thing to have, but the driving point with land is always how much people can afford.
The member for Barkly is right. I have to travel to learn in this job, and I took a trip recently to South Australia and across to Sydney where we were looking at houses built on 112 m. It is quite remarkable, and this was in view of Adelaide city. You could see Adelaide city in the distance, but the most exciting thing about those developments is people could be handed a set of keys for $260 000.
Given our rents in the Northern Territory, compared to what a mortgage would be with today’s low interest rates on $260 000, that is cheaper living. That is less than half the people in Darwin are paying for rents. Are we ready to go to 112 m? That is a debate we should be willing to have. We should not be afraid to have the debate. There will always be people who will not agree with that, but there will be people who want that lifestyle and that is the lifestyle they can afford.
The member for Nelson said people cannot play cricket in their back yard any more. Not everyone wants to play cricket in the back yard. They might want to use the local park. If we are looking at smaller lot sizes for developments, like we have seen in Adelaide, that can turn off a house and land package for $260 000, we have to be prepared to ensure the community around those properties is adequately serviced by decent parks and gardens, that the connectivity from one park to the next has decent pathways, lighting, playground equipment and all these things that could go into a well-planned development like the one I was looking at. In Sydney I saw similar developments. You can do it, and there will also be a market for it, but the market will always be what someone can afford. Not everyone can afford a $750 000 home.
I had the privilege today of looking at a penthouse at the top of the Mantra building - $2.5m worth. What an amazing view giving a different perspective of our city. Not many could afford that kind of lifestyle. I certainly cannot and probably never will, but some people can. There will be people like me who can afford the 112 m. I might choose that. I might not want to pick up palm fronds every weekend, mow lawns, lift bricks and do all those things, yet some people love it. We have to allow for the market. You love it?
Ms Finocchiaro: I do.
Mr CHANDLER: You love it. You have to allow the market to decide what people want. We need decent planning for that and we have to allow these things. Those smaller block sizes, to accommodate houses of around $260 000, are things we should not be afraid to debate.
We are not afraid to work with the private sector. In fact, given our fiscal position, it is nearly a requirement if we are to meet some of the obligations we have made to Territorians. We should not be afraid to do it. Private public partnerships have proven very successful in other areas, even with other government infrastructure, not just Housing.
I have seen some fantastic results of schools built in New South Wales and Queensland through public private partnerships. The member for Port Darwin has looked at an amazing school in Western Sydney: a great idea where principals do not spend half their life reporting damage to schools and getting maintenance done. They just call the contractor and the job is done. There are many advantages of a public private partnership. Governments do not have to spend all the taxpayers’ money in infrastructure up front. It can be done using different methods.
The former minister for Planning was right when he said we have picked up many things the previous government had been doing. There was some great planning that went on in the department and you do not throw that stuff out; you pick up and run with it. Just as the former Labor government, when they took over from the CLP did; it certainly was not the Labor government which built Palmerston, but it continued to grow Palmerston. Governments follow programs, and we will continue to do so now we have taken over the legacy left by the Labor Party. We will continue to grow Palmerston, but we have to look further. Weddell is not my immediate priority. Will Weddell happen? Absolutely, Weddell will happen. Will it be 15, 10, 20 years from now? It will happen.
Murrumujuk is another area that will go ahead, particularly if we to continue to focus on getting heavy industry away from our harbour and into a purpose-built facility where it can grow away from Darwin. We will need a city to support that. To say Weddell is a never never thing – no, Weddell will be there, just as further development into the future will be right around this harbour. We have to plan for it now.
You raise a second airport and people start to panic and think we will build another airport. We should be planning for it now, ensuring someone does not build a school in one of the flight paths. Now is the time to be putting that land aside.
Future freeways - I know the former minister was working on these as well. We have to plan, not just for the next three or four years, but for 10, 15, 20, 50 years from now, well beyond everyone in this parliament except for Lia. We should be doing things today that will matter to people 20 and 30 years from now. That is what good planning is about: getting the corridors in place for freeways, for future rail links and ports. All of those things that will occur in the future we should really be talking about now.
Yes, we will always argue that there is a level of rhetoric, spin, and argument put into statements like this, just as there was when the Labor Party held the Treasury benches. We, in opposition, attacked Labor. You get that, we get that; it is part of what happens. In all of it, there are usually some good ideas from both sides.
The thing I enjoy about Housing, particularly Lands and Planning – the former minister picked up on it – is it is exciting because you can see you can make a difference for the future of Territorians. When you talk with developers and hear some of their ideas, vision, and passion for the Territory, it blows you away. There are some exciting times ahead for the Northern Territory and, with good planning, we can make it happen.
The former minister spoke about the rhetoric in some of the documents and arguments. Perhaps we could spend some more time on the vision; however, with this paper today, we spelt out quite clearly what we had been working on, what we have achieved, and what will occur into the future. The future will involve public private partnerships, particularly the future vision I have with Housing.
Today we have a legacy of very old homes. We have to reach the stage where none of our Territory properties are over 10-15 years old to get rid of the high prices we pay for maintenance. This government is spending more on Territory Housing maintenance than any other government in history. Maintenance is expensive, but the younger the property, the less you will spend on maintenance. Let us start rolling over these old properties with the promise that any money made in that area is put into new properties. We cannot go backwards, we have to go forward.
If we have a constant rolling program then some of our older properties become the first homebuyers’ market. We are building new properties, lifting the standards of communities, taking control and giving some real benefits back to our community as far as ensuring people living in Territory Housing properties are living by the rules set by the community around them. There are expectations. Through the public safety officers, with the work of police and Territory Housing, we can lift the standards of people who choose to live in Territory Housing properties today. If we lift the standards of those houses and those people living within those houses, we make a better community.
There is a vision here. From time to time, the former minister is correct; we should be talking about or articulating better what those visions are, and the plans of how we are going to achieve them.
Madam Speaker, I thank everyone for their involvement. As I said, there is always rhetoric across this Chamber, but in that rhetoric there is often some very good information that comes forward. I have listened and I will be taking a lot of it with me.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Member for Karama
Member for Karama
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have been approached by the member for Karama who wishes to make a personal statement. It is the convention that this is done in silence without interruptions or debate.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I seek to make a personal explanation in relation to the media release I issued on 21 August. On reflection, I accept that this media release was inappropriately expressed. I should not have attributed the Speaker’s decisions to the political party to which she belongs, nor should I have suggested her decisions as Speaker were politically motivated. It was not my intention to undermine, in any way, the integrity of parliament or the position of the Speaker, quite the opposite.
I have always accepted that it is my solemn duty as a member to uphold the integrity and respect for the Assembly and its Chair. In my 12 years in this House, I have always strived to do so. I respectfully suggest that any fair-minded assessment of my service as a member in the past would reach the same conclusion.
Accordingly, I unreservedly withdraw the statements in the media release and apologise to the House and to you, Madam Speaker, both in your official capacity and personally. I advise that I will be issuing a media release in these terms to the media outlets to whom I issued yesterday’s release.
Further, yesterday I used the word ‘embarrassment’ in relation to the Deputy Speaker. Again, I did not intend any offence and I unconditionally withdraw the statement and apologise to the Deputy Speaker.
That said, it is important that I explain the matters leading up to my ejection from parliament yesterday. The parliament was debating the Chief Minister’s gas to Gove statement, one of the most important issues facing the Northern Territory. Originally, I was going to be unable to speak to the statement as I was attending a prearranged meeting with the Chamber of Commerce in relation to gas to Gove. However, upon my return the debate had not finished, and I tried to speak but was prevented from doing so.
It is not unusual at all for members to speak without having provided prior notice. Indeed, a quick search of Hansard will show that the member for Port Darwin has uttered the phrase ‘I was not originally going to speak, but’, numerous times. Throughout the debate, the Deputy Chief Minister asked why I was not speaking to the debate and, through points of order, I indicated I was there to contribute to the debate.
It should be noted that the Chief Minister, immediately upon my ejection from parliament, indicated his desire for me to be allowed to speak, and adjourned the statement until a later date to allow me to speak.
We are fortunate to live in a country which recognises and upholds freedoms of fundamental importance for democracy such as the freedom of political speech. It is inevitable that in the heat of debate in the exercise of this freedom, mistakes such as the mistake I made yesterday will be made.
Having accepted this error and apologised for it, I trust we can now all move on and resume discharging the responsibility we all have to progress the important business of this House. Any other course not only risks distracting us from the discharge of our responsibilities to the Territory, but would run contrary to these fundamental constitutional freedoms.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Karama.
TABLED PAPER
Northern Territory’s Pastoral Land Board Annual Reports for 2010-11 and 2011-12
Northern Territory’s Pastoral Land Board Annual Reports for 2010-11 and 2011-12
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Land Resource Management): Madam Speaker, I table the Northern Territory’s Pastoral Land Board Annual Reports for the reporting periods 2010-11 and 2011-12. In the Northern Territory, the good health of our pastoral industry is pivotal to our economy. It is important for remote and regional jobs. It is the lifeblood of many remote communities and townships and is critical for a great many downstream businesses, such as trucking companies and export yards.
It is the job of the Pastoral Land Board to ensure the health, economic viability and sustainability of the Northern Territory’s pastoral lands in order for the pastoral industry to thrive. The Pastoral Land Board is, and I quote from their annual report:
- … committed to the maintenance and, where possible, the improvement of the condition of the Territory’s pastoral land.
As required under the Pastoral Land Act, the Pastoral Land Board is directed to report to me on the general condition of pastoral land and the operations of the board. However, these annual reports are well overdue to this parliament and me, as the relevant minister, even though I have been Minister for Land Resource Management for eight months. These reporting delays are a direct result of the inadequate resources provided by the previous government to allow the preparation of these important documents that tell us the health of the Northern Territory’s pastoral estate.
This is an industry that brings in over $285m directly, and around $600m indirectly to the Northern Territory’s economy every year. For the past eight years, the Northern Territory’s Pastoral Land Board has been systematically depleted of funding and resources to the point where it was simply unable to do the job for which it was appointed.
In both the reports tabled today, and in the previous reports, the board has expressed ongoing concerns that it is unable to report confidently to the minister and government on the status and condition of the Northern Territory’s pastoral estate due to insufficient monitoring being carried out. This is solely due to the decline in staff, funding and resources for the monitoring of the Territory’s pastoral estate under the regime of the former government.
Let me explain to members opposite the hugely important role the Pastoral Land Board plays. Because, clearly, despite their years in government, they did not take the time to find out what this statutory authority does.
In a nutshell, the Pastoral Land Board monitors the condition and use of pastoral land in accordance with the objectives of the Pastoral Land Act. The Territory’s pastoral land held as pastoral leases makes up around 45% of the Territory. Maintaining this natural resource in good condition is essential for a profitable and sustainable pastoral industry. The Pastoral Land Board is able to determine the health of our pastoral lands by undertaking monitoring on a cross section of properties throughout each pastoral district. However, the reduction in funding and resources saw the frequency of visits and output of land condition monitoring data for the pastoral estate become almost non-existent.
Pastoral properties were previously inspected on a three- to five-year rolling program, but this has fallen well behind schedule across the Territory. The number of pastoral property inspections declined to the extent where the 2011-12 monitoring sites assessed amounted to a paltry 11% of the number of sites assessed in 2007-08. In the 2011-12 annual report, the following outcome is continually repeated: no properties within the Darwin pastoral district were assessed under the monitoring program for 2011-12. No properties in the Katherine pastoral district were assessed during 2011-12. Again, no properties in the Roper pastoral district were assessed during 2011-12. It is not until we get to the VRD pastoral district that we see:
- During the 2011-12 reporting period one station was assessed …
In the Sturt Plateau pastoral district and in the southern Alice Springs pastoral district, again, data collection was undertaken on just one property. What about the cattle stations in the Gulf and Barkly districts, and those around Tennant Creek?
Surely, these areas were monitored and assessed? But no. The funding and resource constraints placed on the Pastoral Land Board by the previous government were so restrictive that not a single station was able to be visited in these pastoral regions by a monitoring team.
Let me put this into context. In 2004-05, 86 properties throughout the Northern Territory were monitored, with a total of 774 monitoring sites. In that 12-month period, 37 new monitoring sites were established. Fast forward eight years under the previous government’s administration, and we had three properties, and a total of 52 sites assessed all together, with no new monitoring sites established.
For the benefit of those opposite, let me break that down for you. That is 83 fewer properties monitored and 722 fewer sites being assessed across our pastoral lands. As I said, monitoring and reporting on the condition of pastoral land is a key function of the Pastoral Land Board under the Pastoral Land Act.
Importantly, the board is also responsible for instigating remedial action to restore pastoral land condition. In the Northern Territory, maintaining natural pastures is a primary goal of sustainable pastoral management so the land can maintain productivity for future generations. That makes sense. However, for many years now the board has been concerned that the level of pastoral monitoring has decreased to an alarming level.
I have been advised that under the previous level of monitoring it was impossible for the Pastoral Land Board to provide an accurate assessment of land conditions throughout the pastoral estate. In fact, the situation grew so dire that the then Chairman of the Pastoral Land Board, Mr Anthony Young, wrote in the 2011-12 Annual Report that because of the lack of monitoring being undertaken, the board was:
- … unable to provide an objective assessment of land condition across all of the pastoral districts of the Northern Territory.
It was their expert assessment that if this current level of monitoring was not increased it would be impossible to provide an accurate assessment of land conditions.
The decline in resources to deliver support and advice to landholders is highlighted in the fact that during 2012, when this government took office, the Department of Land Resource Management had only one dedicated field-based rangeland monitoring officer based in Katherine.
Another important aspect of the rangeland monitoring and inspection program is the updating of pastoral infrastructure maps. These are an important resource for government and lessees for the management and development of pastoral properties. However, the reduced number of property visits has also resulted in the infrequent updating of pastoral infrastructure mapping by government; therefore, impacting on pastoral management and development.
The rangeland monitoring, infrastructure, mapping, and regular lease inspections by departmental staff and the Pastoral Land Board was simply not a priority of the former government, which is clearly evident in these two annual reports.
As a direct result of the reduced resources, support, and staff in the rangeland monitoring program under the former government, some properties have not been revisited for up to 10 years. A lot can change in a pastoral property over 10 years. This not only leads to a loss of rapport and relationship with the property owners, but the loss of important information regarding change, land condition, and potential areas for development. This major decline in services has also been noted and commented on by the pastoral industry, an industry already suffering from the long-lasting impacts of federal Labor’s terrible decision to ban live cattle exports to Indonesia in 2011, and the recent below-average seasonal conditions.
Information and advice regarding land condition and management is imperative at this time to ensure the Territory’s resources are managed and developed sustainably and responsibly. Pastoralists and land managers require information and support to ensure the longevity and sustainability of the industry.
To reverse this downward trend in monitoring, this government has provided an extra $400 000 to the Department of Land Resource Management for the reinvigoration of the rangeland monitoring program. With this funding, the department has recruited additional staff members across Darwin, Katherine and Alice Springs regions to deliver support and service to pastoralists and undertake rangeland monitoring and property inspections. We now have a team of nine staff in the rangeland monitoring branch across the NT. The department has embarked on a hectic field schedule for 2013, focusing on properties in the Barkly and southern Alice Springs pastoral districts. Field staff are focused on ground data collection, property inspections, updating pastoral infrastructure and, most importantly, re-establishing relations and trust with the lessees and property managers across the NT.
We have also provided the Pastoral Land Board with an extra $100 000 so it can be administrated and operated effectively. This funding will enable the board to hold regular face-to-face meetings in regional centres, visit pastoralists and stakeholders, and carry out field trips to gather information required to process applications and report to government. In fact, the board has already held a meeting in Katherine and undertook inspections in that region earlier this year.
The difficulties faced by the Pastoral Land Board, due to insufficient monitoring, were not acknowledged by the former government which allowed rangeland monitoring and reporting to dwindle and deplete. These annual reports clearly highlight the former government’s lack of commitment to the growth and support of important industries in the Northern Territory. The under-resourcing by the former government resulted in both the department and the Pastoral Land Board being unable effectively manage 45% of the Northern Territory’s land mass, land that is held under pastoral tenure or for pastoral purposes.
The Country Liberals government is committed to the pastoral industry, an industry that is an important contributor to the NT economy. The Country Liberals government values the pastoral industry and is committed to ensuring its growth and success. The increased funding provided by the Country Liberals government will renew support to the pastoral industry through the provision of extension services with regard to pastoral land clearing applications, non-pastoral use applications, property inspections, reporting and more frequent property visits and infrastructure updates.
Funding for the Rangeland Monitoring Program will provide field support to the Pastoral Land Board to undertake field assessment and reporting for subdivisions, conversions to perpetuity, remedial and voluntary management plan inspections, and pastoral lease compliance inspections.
I look forward to tabling next year’s annual report which will show significant improvement in the monitoring and reporting of the Northern Territory’s pastoral land estate.
Madam Speaker, I table the 2010-11 and the 2011-12 Northern Territory Pastoral Land Board Annual Reports and seek leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Debate adjourned.
TABLED PAPER
Travel Report for Member for Daly
Travel Report for Member for Daly
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table two travel reports for the member for Daly, pursuant to Remuneration Tribunal Determination No 1 of 2012.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, tonight I wish to pay my condolences to the family of Lisa Ramsay, George Taylor and , constituents of mine who passed away in the tragic car accident on Girraween Road in Howard Springs on Friday 2 August 2013.
I would particularly like to pay my condolences and respect to Lisa’s parents, who are also constituents of mine, Barry and Robyn Ramsay. I had been out and about in my electorate just a week prior and had met and spoken to Robyn Ramsay and her two grandsons, including George, who has now sadly passed.
Lisa, like me, when she was younger, went to Gray Primary School, as did her brothers, Steven and Christopher. Her son, George, attended Gray Primary School as well. He followed in the family footsteps and the Gray Primary School newsletter said George had been a very happy young man who loved coming to preschool. I am sure he did.
Circumstances like this are deeply regrettable and only so much can be said about the loss of such young lives and what their contribution to our community could have been if this unfortunate incidence had not happened.
On behalf of the entire Drysdale community, particularly, the Gray community whose thoughts and prayers are with the family during this incredibly difficult time, we are thinking of you.
- What we have once enjoyed we can never lose. All that we love deeply becomes a part of us.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, on a train ride back to Alice, Grandad made friends with a boy his own age, Dinny Hogan, who was travelling with his aunt, Mrs Morton, to go to work on her station. This was a lucky friendship because Grandad did not pack enough food for a train that could only travel 20 miles per hour at its best, but often only at eight miles per hour. It was a long trip.
Mrs Morton, in feeding a second hungry boy, and with a shortage of labour on her station, offered employment to Grandad with her husband, William John ‘Nugget’ Morton, at Ammaroo Station. He accepted immediately, at which point she advised him a condition was parental approval, and a trip to his unsuspecting mum in Alice. Grandad was convinced that any decisions about him were his to make. This was ignored. His consternation was misplaced. His Mum was not surprised he was in Alice Springs and not in Adelaide where, at age 12, he was meant to be at school. She was now working at the Wauchope Hotel and she agreed wholeheartedly that a job on a station was in his best interests:
- Now seventy years later I can recall with total clarity every day that I spent on Ammaroo and the nights, most of which I spent plotting my escape.
We would endeavour to accomplish whatever it was that Nugget had had planned for the day, without in any way arousing the more disturbing side of his nature; in this at least we became fairly adept, although with some failures which we would long remember.
- Cattle either lost by passing drovers or as the result of chasing storms and finding themselves in Ammaroo we did kill, and they were called strangers in that they bore brands other than our own.
As Nugget would say, ‘While you are killing theirs, they are killing yours.’
Grandad’s time on the station saw him learn, with his ally Dinny, how to ride, muster, camp and subsist in the middle of nowhere; how to shoot; make rope from cowhide; pickle beef; salt beef; a stint as the station cook, and the valuable lesson of how to make bread not damper; how to drill a bore; and the quickest way to clean out an old pit toilet. His first trip to Utopia to get supplies in a wagon taught the value of following the road. They learnt how to fix anything, and all under the watchful eye of a hard taskmaster.
Not all the time on the station was pure hard slog; misadventure, tellings-off which involved a good beating, docked pays, and at times rotating, random sleeping spots so he and Dinny could avoid an overdue flogging:
- Following a midday meal of cooked salted beef with half an onion for greens, followed by a slab of damper plastered with treacle, which we enjoyed every day for breakfast, dinner and tea, Nugget was having a siesta.
During this period of inactivity I now and then retired to a place I discovered where I could be on my own yet still be aware of all that was going on; this was at the very top of the windmill.
With my back firmly pressed against the tower, I sat on the small timber platform; a delightful feeling of danger along with a superb view of our small world was very satisfying.
I could look straight down on a stock tank full of water, a large silver disc without one ripple of movement.
Or just daydream and watch the cattle water while the giant wheel turned relentlessly a foot or so away.
There were no award wages or any kind of structured salary arrangement for Dinny and Grandad.
- Club footed, shaggy to boot and prone to stumbling, Gypsy was my first payment for labour I ever received from Nugget Morton.
I was inclined to think, as Nugget probably did, that she was all I was worth. She had a nature of a saint, but even well curried and with her tail pulled, she looked raffish. It wasn’t long though before I realised she was in foal; I was going get two horses.
Nugget was seriously displeased; he carried on like a bush lawyer for a few days. Kay entered the fray and decided, and only proper too, that since it was my mare it was my foal.
- Uncle Eddy, my mother’s eldest brother looking more Mexican than anyone else in the family, kept up a steady stream of correspondence with me over the years.
He took great glee addressing his envelopes to Stockman Gunner, Gunner the Cook or any other title that took his fancy; one letter was addressed to the Goat herder.
He met me at the station, marvelled over the change in me, and told me I should get a proper job - work for the railways for a while and see how I went. Rather than argue, and more to keep in funds than anything, I went along with what he suggested, but with no intention of making anything permanent out of the proposed job.
This job ended during a night shift.
- One night alerted by a single whistle [we] strolled across to throw the points for the shunt engine. We were half way there when the driver gave two toots on his whistle and took off tearing past us, heading down the wrong line.
The manoeuvre made us aware that my companion had been carrying the lamp with the green lens exposed. The engine was head first in the turn table pit. The occupants were not injured.
We would have been if we had hung around. I don’t know what my erstwhile friend did, but I bolted and cleared camp, swag and all in under an hour flat.
- It was six months after the one month holiday; the Morton’s were not home, so Grandad went to work for Trot and Sunny Kunoth in Utopia.
- No trouble getting a start. Trot’s sons were away. I assured Trot and Sunny that I had some experience with cutting timber. The next day found me with two camels, a buckboard, and several sharp axes, plenty of rations and water, and setting off to a stand of Mulga…some 20 miles to the east.
- He added that about 700 fence posts would be required and to keep them to four inch at the small end. They had not yet realised their luck, my experiences at Ammaroo had left me anxious to please. Nugget once informed me while we were cutting rails for the new yard that a good man could drop a hundred posts a day.
- By getting up in the middle of the night and retiring just before it, I cut one hundred the first day. The next day, totally knackered, I only managed fifty.
A fortnight after leaving I was back. Sonny at first thought I had quit, but upon learning of my tally he said it wasn’t bad for a young fellow and he was looking forward to seeing me get in my stride. It took me a while to get upwind of Sonny’s wit.
Nugget soon found Grandad at Utopia and had him back to Ammaroo, and the next few years of Grandad’s life centred around mustering and droving for Nugget.
- A drover’s life is hard and demanding, no room for slackers and no room for pity.
- We had about 700 head in the mob we lifted off Ammaroo that year and, our apprenticeship having been completed, it was a very different pair of lads who fell with ease into carrying out their duties.
It is safe, secure, and a school not many people are aware of. In fact, many people do not know that there is a primary school down towards Fogg Dam, unless they travel to the dam itself and see the signage.
Middle Point School does have a long history. The school started in around the 1960s I recall, and it was set up to provide schooling for families who were associated with the research farms in the area. That went on for quite some time, and now it is still going to service and provide schooling for the nearby farmers, sometimes they are Vietnamese, sometimes they are the families associated with the crocodile farms and, of course, children who come from the Marrakai and Corroboree area.
The school only has about 30 students and it varies from as low as 25, and sometimes it might have 33. It is a composite school. There is a class for the small children, and there is a class for the older children. There are two teachers, and two teachers’ aids.
The Teaching Principal is Narelle Dahl, and she has been there for a few years - a delightful teacher, and a truly dedicated professional. The other teacher is Jenna Deveraux, and she also is a delightful person.
The aids and the other staff at the school are Donna Bradford and Julie Duncan. I know Donna Bradford, in particular, has been there for quite some time and really enjoys working there and helping the children grow and prosper. I have been to some of their school functions, they do not have school assemblies as they are a very small school; and I have been to the opening of some of the new facilities there.
Earlier this year, Leanne and Rob from the Education Unit here went down to Middle Point to do role-playing, and I went down with them to lend a hand and join in with the celebrations. It was a really good day. Compliments to Leanne and Rob because the students not only enjoyed the role-playing and the mock parliament, but they learnt something from it.
I would like to place on the record the students who were involved and, of course, they were selected by the teachers, probably based on their performance, behaviour, their attendance, and generally how they go at the school.
The Speaker was Calvin Kelly; he did a superb job, of course, under very careful guidance from me.
The Leader of Government was Brandon Hands; the Leader of the Opposition was Jonathan Dang. Mr Clerk was Mathew Dang, and the Deputy Clerk was Madisyn Teece. Serjeant-at-Arms was Damon Campbell. The Independent, because they did have an Independent, was Jaimi Fitzgerald.
The government members were: Thor Curry, Chloe Holden, Joseph King, Shellcia Campbell, and Zidane Nguyen.
The Opposition members were: Koby Henderson, Liam Fitzgerald and Kayla Campbell.
They debated quite a few laws; they eventually ended up selecting a bill to debate that was relevant to them. I cannot quite recall what it was, but it was along the lines of whether or not school children should be forced to wear uniforms. So, they had to debate the issue out, and I think the ultimate outcome was that children should wear school uniforms - which was very interesting in itself.
Compliments to them all, and congratulations to Narelle and her team. It is a delightful school, a good school, and if any of my colleagues, or anyone from this Chamber wishes to visit Middle Point and find out about the history of this school which, as I said, has a long history, I am happy to take them down there. It is a beautiful location.
I get a little worried sometimes because it backs right on to Fogg Dam, and we know that there is a very large salt water crocodile that resides in Fogg Dam, and their back oval is fairly close to the dam. But I know they do take precautions and nothing will happen, I am sure.
So, congratulations to them all, and I wish them all the very best for the rest of this term, and I am sure I will be seeing them very soon.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to speak about a few of the happenings in the Wanguri electorate, and congratulate some of the people who have contributed to making these things happen.
First, I would like to speak about Dripstone Middle School and their recent performance of Grease the Musical. I have to say, it was fantastic. I really was quite blown away by the standard of the performance and what this middle school was able to put together.
It was great to also see so many parents come out to support the students who were involved, and it was an absolutely packed house. They performed over two nights, and it was packed houses both nights.
You could see the students were having a great time and, what really impressed me was the fact that so many students were involved - it seemed the whole school was up on stage.
It was great to see so many students getting involved in singing, dancing, acting, and playing the musical instruments. It was something the school should be really proud of because it was an amazing performance.
I would like to congratulate the people who helped make the show happen: the Show Director, Janelle Cantrill; Music Director, Elspeth Carnegie; Stage Managers, Josie Glover and Kieran Parsons; Lights and Sound Crew, Andrew Dudley and Douglas Cantrill; Principal Jodie Green, and her staff for all the support they gave the students.
I have to say there was a very special scene of Beauty School Dropout performed by the staff - the teachers and Jodie Green. It was quite amusing to say the least, and everyone absolutely loved it.
Special congratulations to the students who took the time out to do all the rehearsals, all the training and practice - you put on a great show.
Congratulations Dripstone Middle School! I hope you put on another musical next year, because I was quite impressed and very entertained.
I would also like to congratulate some of my other schools on their success at the recent Northern Zone sports carnival. Big congratulations to Leanyer School who won the Henry Gray Award, would you believe, for the highest overall points at the carnival. They had a huge contingent of students competing, and they did pretty well to say the least.
Also, the Holy Spirit School won the Paul Henderson Shield for overall points based on the number of students there; and it was a real honour for me to present the shield on behalf of Paul and, hopefully, present that shield in many years to come.
Well done Wanguri School, and St Andrews, you did not get one of the big shields this year, but you put in great performances, and it was great to see so much school spirit on display.
Recently, I was also fortunate to attend St Andrew Lutheran Primary School’s30th birthday celebrations. It was an absolutely wonderful event, and it was the first time I had gone to a service of the St Andrew School’s congregation. It was a wonderful experience on a very hot Sunday morning out on the basketball court, and it was great to see so many people, about 100 people.
I would like to congratulate the Principal, Damon Prenzler for organising such a wonderful event; Pastor Jeff Kuchel for holding such a wonderful service, and Amanda Peek, their hard-working all-round Administrator of the school, for helping organise the day.
A special thanks to the students in the choir: Alicia Rimington, Caitlin Lyons, Yungor McGill, Jade Lang, Alanah Hubert, Lily Hayes, Tiana Gaffney, and Amelia Sands, and their teacher, Mrs Sharnee Walsh, who helped prepare these students for a wonderful performance.
Thank you, St Andrew’s, for having me there for your 30th birthday celebrations – a very proud 30 years so far and, hopefully, another proud 30 years to come. I am enjoying my involvement in the school and getting to know you all much better.
On a personal note to finish off, not related to my electorate, I would like to congratulate my very good friend, Gemma Thorpe, on getting through to the final 12 on The X Factor. Unfortunately, I was not able to watch it the other night because we were here in parliament, but she just missed out on the top six I hear. Apparently, she put on a fantastic performance and I might catch up on the Internet over the weekend to see the episodes again and see how she went.
Gemma is an amazing young lady, she is not only a very handy forward pocket or wing player on the football field, she is an incredible singer. We have been very lucky to see some impromptu performances over the years at the club rooms or in back yards or out and about - we always knew she had a great voice.
She not only sings, she is a Territory police officer and we are so lucky to have a person like Gemma who is just an amazing character. She has a huge heart, she is great with people and really cares about the people around her and making a difference, so we are lucky to have her as a Territory police officer. If the singing career does not work out, good thing we have her as a fantastic police officer.
Congratulations, Gemma, let us see what happens with the rest of your singing career.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, today I want to talk about a railway picnic I attended at Adelaide River on Picnic Day weekend.
They quite often have Railway Picnic Days there, and if people have not been to them, they are a terrific day to go to. There is a lot of music, tea, coffee, sausages, and everyone just sits around and has great fun.
The music is what I really want to get to. A group plays there called The Fettlers and the members are a fellow by the name of Peter Bate, who plays the mandolin and a tenor banjo; Mike Lane who plays bass; Chris Pimberton plays the guitar; Fritz Risler plays the fiddle; Pat Somers plays the whistle, the spoons and the melodeon, and Tony Suttor plays the button accordions.
All these people are members of the Top End Folk Club and have been making music around Darwin and the Territory since the mid-1970s, individually and as a group. This Picnic Day at Adelaide River was to launch their first CD.
Some history of this group is Tony and Peter first started playing for the Friends of the North Australian Railway in about 2002 at the first Picnic Day the Railway had out there, and The Fettlers have grown out of that, and they have been the house band at all the annual railway picnics pretty well ever since.
The Friends of the Railway share more than a little responsibility for getting this CD out over the last of couple years, they have put pressure on the band to do it. The driving force behind that, of course, is Trevor Horman, so when we talk about the Friends, it is specifically Trevor.
The CD is a celebration of all things railway. The bias is proudly Australian, with some odd foreigners, and there are several homegrown songs from the Territory featured, including one by our own Kathy Mills. It was a pleasure for me to launch the CD.
For those people who have not been to Adelaide River for a while, next time there is a railway picnic, go down there. These CDs are available for sale.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016