2014-03-26
Madam Speaker Purick took the Chair at 10 am.
Mr ELFERINK (Children and Families): Madam Speaker, I move that:
1. a Select Committee on Action to Prevent Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder be appointed
2. the committee shall inquire into and report on:
I believe there is an intended amendment from the floor of the House through some negotiating last night. We will take that amendment on board.
3. the committee’s membership shall comprise three government members, two opposition members and one Independent member
4. the committee may elect a deputy Chair of the committee who may act as Chair when the Chair is absent from the meeting or there is no Chair of the committee
5. a quorum of the committee shall be three members of the committee
6. the committee is to report in the October sittings
7. the provisions of this resolution, insofar that they are inconsistent with standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.
I support this motion and understand from my conversations with members opposite last night that, with an amendment, this motion will be supported and the government will accept the amendment. To make sure the bipartisan spirit of this committee is maintained, rather than bring on the amendment myself, it is important members opposite be allowed to offer the amendment and have it introduced accordingly on the floor of this House so they too have ownership of this very important motion.
It is with some trepidation I walk into this place, because it is a question which will engender and enliven a spirited debate. When I started discussing this matter in the public domain not so long ago it enlivened and engendered a debate which is important to have.
I have made certain observations and comments about possibilities, but will not stray into it any further because I do not wish to presume or suggest what the results of the committee findings might be. This is a committee of discovery, a committee which will look at areas from my world perspective of child protection issues, but will also stray into health issues, as it unavoidably must.
Consequently, I turn to the problems FASD represents for our community. Foetal alcohol spectrum disorder is well documented in other jurisdictions. Canada has done enormous work on how it has become manifest in its jurisdiction. I believe Nigel Scullion also spent some time there – I could stand corrected on this – looking at this issue.
Alcohol is a problem in the Northern Territory and we have had many wide-ranging debates looking at the history of alcohol consumption and its effects, but what is less certain is the prevalence of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. It would be nave of me to suggest it is not there, and not for one second do I suggest that. But, we need to know, as a community, how prevalent this manifestation of human conduct is. If the manifestation is profound we need to know and plan for it into the future.
The second element of this motion is the nature of the injuries and effects of FASD on its sufferers. I understand a number of deleterious outcomes become manifest under the FASD banner. I believe we need, as a jurisdiction, to understand not only the prevalence of the problem but the nature of the problem.
Clause 2(c), which will be amended, talks about what the government response should be. I will not dwell on this too much, because I know it will be amended on the floor of the House and, as a consequence, we should continue but not limit the committee from looking at the response government might choose to take, whatever that response is.
I am mindful, as the minister responsible for child protection, that it is incumbent upon me to protect children in the community. Should I, or my department, neglect that duty it would quickly be an issue spoken about in the most passionate and hot terms in this House. I am excruciatingly mindful of the expectation upon me that once a child is physiologically independent of its mother, there is a high level of expectation that the child, if neglected or abused, receive an appropriate response from government.
Government is not a good parent and I suspect government will never become a good parent, therefore I am always anxious to ensure the links between parents and their children are maintained as far as possible.
This is not a debate about the rights and choices of women. If the choice is exercised in the affirmative and a woman decides to have a child, I have one question for the committee to turn its mind to: as the minister responsible for child protection, what are the boundaries of my duties to children we know will be born? I hope this will come back into this House so the public’s expectation towards children who will be born is described, and it is something I would like a great deal of public input on. For this reason, the select committee is being established.
Select committees look into a topic; this is neither a standing nor sessional committee, it is simply a select committee to look at this issue. The intent is to have the select committee report back to this House in the October sittings on its discoveries and findings in the community. I know many people will want to have input into this debate and I welcome them all. The only thing I plead for from this House – and I believe this House will hear my plea, but also from the public in general – is we approach this issue with sobriety and temperance, with measured language and careful, cautious consideration about the issues we will discuss.
This issue will drive people’s emotions and for that reason, all the more, we should be careful to concentrate on the issue itself, and to make certain we keep those emotional responses within the domain of what is appropriate.
This is not intended by me or the Northern Territory government, and I do not think it will be intended by this House, to be divisive in nature. It is a genuine exercise in discovery, understanding and learning about the extent of this problem in the Northern Territory, and what the appropriate response would be on behalf of the Northern Territory government, and perhaps the input of the federal government as well.
I suspect we will discover this to be a substantial problem in our community. If it is the present government, and governments in the future, must understand the prevalence and depth of the problem in our community.
I do not want to dedicate a huge amount of time to speaking about this motion. The motion is, essentially, self-evident in its intent. Anything I might add to the debate at this point would only have the effect, I suspect, of trying to pre-empt, in one fashion or another, the deliberations of the committee.
As I said at the outset, that is not my intent. Government, Territorians and I want to know the nature and size of the problem in the Northern Territory and what would be appropriate responses.
I welcome input and debate from all members who have an interest in this area, and I look forward to this committee, should the House determine to go down the path of having a select committee. I look forward to this committee’s report back to this House, and ultimately, to the government of the Northern Territory.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, firstly, the opposition supports the establishment of the Select Committee on Action to Prevent Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder. Today we gave genuine bipartisan support in this Chamber. We all see FASD is an issue, and we all want to use our roles in parliament to drive change for the better and help reduce FASD across the Territory.
I appreciate this committee will look into how deep the issue is, and that is critical. That way you are best placed to put some solutions in place to tackle the issue.
What we have, through this select committee, is a real opportunity to lead the way with the latest evidence, the latest research, look at the best ways to tackle the issue of FASD and improve education, prevention and treatment.
I understand the member for Port Darwin does not want to pre-empt any findings of the committee, but I need to state the opposition sees FASD as a serious health issue.
We see the best approach coming from a health perspective, not a criminal one. There has been huge debate ignited in the last few weeks at a local and national level, but in this parliament today we are looking at the establishment of a select committee to look at FASD because there is genuine concern and genuine intent by all of us to make change for the better. We see it as an issue across the Territory, so that is an extremely positive thing.
On this select committee, if it goes forward – which is looking extremely likely – me, as shadow Health minister, and the member for Barkly will be nominating for roles. I have been deeply moved in this Chamber, hearing some tragic stories the member for Barkly has shared with regard to his experiences from his time living in the Territory and elsewhere, and seeing the impact of FASD and the tragic consequences that can follow in a person’s life.
We see FASD as a big issue because it impacts a child, its development and affects its adult life. Research says the symptoms and impairment in development and learning go through life. It leads to cognitive disorders, mental health conditions, intellectual impairment, potentially lifelong alcohol and other drug abuse issues, behavioural issues and propensity to impulsiveness and memory problems. These are big issues.
The consequences of growing up with those issues are severe disruption to schooling. As you are trying to gain an education – most or all of us would agree if you do not have a solid education it is very difficult to have a truly fulfilling adult life. If health issues prevent you from obtaining a good, solid education, that will lead to big problems in your life. It is more likely you will need lifelong support and care, and more likely you will end up in the criminal justice system. That is a fact.
We need a greater effort in prevention. There seems to be a lack of awareness and understanding of what FASD is in the Australian community. This work on the select committee can help go a long way in the Territory, but we can also contribute to the national debate. There seems to be a lack of early diagnosis in the area and some under-reporting.
We need to get to the bottom of this issue; find out how prevalent it is today and a forecast for the future. We need to reduce that forecast. This gives us an opportunity to do that. We need to see what support carers and families need, and how we can better integrate support services to help people with FASD.
Most importantly, we need to look at prevention. We need to look at what mechanisms we can put in place to reduce the incidence of FASD. In this work what is important – and what we must always be conscious of – is getting mothers at risk to get help. We need them, and their families, to be part of the solution and everybody working together to reduce the incidence of FASD. It is important, when we look at the issue, that it goes beyond just the mother. It is far broader than just the mother; it is about the family unit.
We have a real opportunity to make some changes and we all want to see changes. The opposition is very supportive of the establishment of this select committee. We have been approached by the Attorney-General with regard to the terms of reference, and we sincerely appreciate the Attorney-General’s offer to look at them and contribute.
We have looked at them and will be putting an amendment to clause 2(c) of the terms of reference. We want to change the way it reads because we feel it will be more holistic, inclusive, and will drive, ultimately, better results from this committee so we can see the changes we want.
We will call for support from the House to amend 2(c) of the terms of reference which, currently reads:
to: actions the government can take to reduce FASD based on evidence and consultation.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Wanguri, can you pause so I can welcome students. Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of two Year 5/6 classes from Woodroffe Primary School accompanied by Wendy Heironymus and Ashley Gilles. Welcome, and I hope you enjoy your time at Parliament House.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms MANISON: I might give some reasoning around why we are moving this amendment and then formally move it, if that is okay. It is important our work to reduce FASD focuses on the welfare and health of the mother and the unborn child. It is inherent and explicit in any debate on FASD that we are dealing with an unborn child, a mother and a family. To explicitly focus on an unborn child misses an opportunity to focus on holistic care and responses. Further, we have genuine concerns that should the terms of reference focus on the unborn child alone, the inquiry will become a lightning rod for the right to life movement, which is neither the intent of the government or the opposition of the Northern Territory.
We see this committee as a genuine opportunity for parliament to drill down and find some real answers to reducing FASD and improving the lives and futures of so many. To do this, it is critical we take an evidence-based approach and consult broadly. There is an opportunity to speak to the experts in the field of FASD as well as people dealing with the issue on a day-to-day basis. We need to talk to the experts, the carers and the affected families.
We look forward to working with the government and the member for Nelson on this select committee. We believe we have a fantastic opportunity to make real change, and there is a real determination on all sides to drive change for the better. I sincerely thank the Attorney-General for an opportunity to comment on the terms of reference. I can see he genuinely wants to drive change and we thank him for that.
Madam Speaker, I move the following amendment: omit clause 2(c) and insert clause 2(c), ‘actions the government can take to reduce FASD based on evidence and consultation’.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I will speak to both the amendment and the original motion.
I will make a statement at the beginning which caught my ear recently. There was an interview on ABC radio the other day, and I will not go into all the issues raised, but one issue the President of the Australian College of Midwives raised – they accused the government of being racist. It was funny listening to the member for Wanguri because she did not mention that, nor did the member for Port Darwin, but the Australian College of Midwives mentioned it.
I was a bit ashamed because I was visiting a school in my area – I will not say which school but we do not have a high Aboriginal population in the rural area; about 9% of people class themselves as Aboriginal – and someone said to me, ‘We have a number of students who suffer from foetal alcohol spectrum disorder’. We have to be very careful here. Once we start putting this into boxes of whether someone is black or white we are heading down the wrong path.
This is about making sure any child, black or white, or any other colour or ethnicity, is born so they grow up to be a healthy person. I want to make that clear because I felt that was someone from down south making a statement which is not helpful in this debate.
I thank the Attorney-General for bringing this matter forward. I am not an expert in this area. I recall on many occasions the previous member for Arafura, Marion Scrymgour, passionately talking about this problem because she had seen it firsthand. As someone who worked in the health area, especially in the Katherine area, she knew firsthand the problems associated with this illness. I am not sure what it is classed as. Is it a syndrome?
Mr Elferink: It is a disorder.
Mr WOOD: Disorder is an unusual word. I am here to learn. I have no doubt we will have different points of view.
Recently the minister has been talking about issues regarding the Children’s Commissioner, and for a long time I have been concerned – in relation to the Children’s Commissioner – about definitions. This will be very important here because we will have to deal with the definition of child.
In the Criminal Code Act a child means a person who is not an adult. If you look in the Children’s Commissioner Act, I think it refers to another act; it tells you to look at the Care and Protection of Children Act, which says child means:
This raises some strong and difficult ethical issues we will have to deal with. It will deal with health issues, and the amendment brought forward by the member for Wanguri is important because we are not only dealing with the health of the unborn, but with the health of the mother. The two are naturally interlocked, if you want to call it that. We have to deal on both levels.
We have to deal with the legalities of what we are doing. Can the Children’s Commissioner be given power to deal with this if we do not have a definition of a child? We have the science of what foetal alcohol spectrum disorder is – what causes it, what effects it has – and the science about what a child is, which is where ethics mixes with science.
What is a human life? Some of these matters are difficult to debate. Many personal feelings and the way you are brought up can come into it, but I try to work on what my conscience tells me. These issues need to be debated. I remember a good debate we had with Syd Stirling over some of these issues years ago, and it is one of those opportunities you rarely get in parliament to deal with complex issues.
I see this as being far more important than whether we split up Power and Water. It is important and I will get passionate about it, but it is not as important as what we do with and how we care for the unborn and their mothers; it is something we have to grapple with.
There is no doubt this will be a difficult area. It will cover the causes, because it is no good us looking at the results of abuse of alcohol. I will be asking what we can do to reduce the influence of alcohol in our society, because people do not drink for no reason.
They get themselves to this point for an array of reasons, whether it is poverty, welfare dependency – as the Attorney-General raised on television the other night – or over exposure to alcohol advertising and the influence the alcohol industry has in our society where it is regarded as a core social value. Unfortunately, this core social value can cause problems, one of which we will see when we discuss this issue more fully.
There are many issues we have to deal with. We will also have to deal with – again, the member for Wanguri mentioned it – how other countries or jurisdictions deal with this issue.
The Attorney-General raised the issue that has caused some heat in the debate, but that is not to say he should not have raised it. It is the issue of whether a mother could be prosecuted or restrained from drinking while pregnant. I am not saying I agree or disagree. I would like to look at what happens in other countries. That is an area we will have to discuss pretty thoroughly, because I put it into the realm of other matters the government has brought forward which restrict people. For instance, Alcohol Protection Orders stop people drinking. We already have that, and we have mandatory alcohol rehabilitation centres where people are physically removed from society to stop them drinking.
We can argue whether they are good or bad, but in the discussions we will have in the next few months all those things need to be looked at. Again, the member for Wanguri raised some great points about education and the promotion of a lifestyle where mothers know they have a responsibility to care and nurture their children from the day they are conceived. Education is an area we must look at and compare against other jurisdictions and what their education programs are in relation to this matter.
I must admit, I have only given this thought today because I was thinking of other things on the agenda today as well. There are a fair number of things we must deal with today, but I raise those issues to show this will be a very complex select committee dealing with some very complex issues, varied issues and, probably, many issues. We will have, I imagine, different points of view on our committee and will hear from people with different points of view.
I do not believe we should shy away from those difficult problems. That highlights the importance of parliament and parliament works best, sometimes, when people get together to deal with problems, especially if we are trying to find solutions to make life better for our citizens, whether unborn or born. Using that as our objective should drive us to come up with some answers that will, hopefully, achieve improvements in this area.
I thank the Attorney-General for bringing this important matter forward, and I thank the member for Wanguri for her amendment which makes the original motion broader, especially in relation to both the unborn child and mother.
Mrs PRICE (Community Services): Madam Speaker, I support the Attorney-General’s motion to refer the issue of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder to a select committee.
It is timely for the Northern Territory to start investigating exactly how FASD impacts and affects Territorians. We are all aware in this House there is a health risk associated with alcohol consumption. Some of these health risks can be long lasting, and it is important for this House and the community to recognise that health impacts do not necessarily result from the excessive consumption of alcohol or binge drinking. My brief research into FASD raises the issue that any amount of alcohol can cause harm to an unborn child, and these medical conditions are permanent.
I am keen to hear about some science, as well as some hard data, to give us a clear picture of FASD across the NT. I will be interested in getting answers to questions about the best role of government in addressing FASD. I totally support children having the best life possible, free from any substance abuse or violence. As Minister for Women’s Policy, I have a keen interest in this committee and its findings. I agree with the Attorney-General and the member for Wanguri that this issue is not about the right to choose; it is about making sure all children get the opportunity to live their lives the way they wish and not to be burdened with the mistakes of their parents.
How should we address this issue of FASD which takes away the choice of a child? Is it through prohibition or criminal sanctions? These options raise serious questions for me about exactly how compliance is achieved and what we do with a mother who does not comply. Is it through education? Do governments of all persuasions do enough in this area to warn pregnant women and women who are wishing to fall pregnant about the dangers of FASD and the life sentence they are giving their child? Can we do something like the spina bifida and neural tube defects education campaign? This seems to be a very successful and life-changing campaign.
I hope the committee can look into these types of public education campaigns. Can we engage the NGO sector with this committee and work in partnership with the national organisation for FASD? FASD has a great deal of information and suggestions around it that the committee, hopefully, will examine in its deliberations.
I look forward to participating in this committee in some way, but I urge the committee to take a careful, balanced approach to this. In my view, education is the vaccine of the 21st century, and this is an area in which we can do so much more.
Madam Speaker, I support this motion.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this motion to the House relating to the formation of a Select Committee on Action to Prevent Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder. I thank the Labor Caucus for nominating me to be part of it. It is a privileged position to be able to research and report back to government and parliament on an extremely important issue for the development of the Northern Territory in relation to our children and young people.
I will go through a bit of a chronology I have followed since the announcement, which starts with a media release on 25 March 2014, from Hon John Elferink, Minister for Children and Families. In the second paragraph it says:
That is a wide and broad-ranging sweeping statement. This committee is about researching this issue in a Northern Territory context – Northern Territory children and families – and possibly start to lead the nation as a result of this research and government action.
We will start to move immediately from the political approach to a dedicated and directed approach based on good sound empirical research. A committee of inquiry to report is a good way to do business in this parliament. As an elected community member I have skills in certain areas, but I am not an expert in any of those areas. Using a committee of parliament, particularly a select committee, to call in experts and engage the community is a very good way to do business and develop government policy.
My own personal learning around foetal alcohol syndrome and its effects relate to my mother, a triple certificate nursing sister who commenced my learning in this area by taking the glass of champagne out of the hand of the family member announcing their pregnancy at a family celebration. I distinctly remember asking her about those actions – I am going back to the 1960s – and my mother, Nora McCarthy, would explain succinctly why it was not a good idea for the new mum or new dad to celebrate the announcement to the clan with alcohol.
I then started to explore this issue in a professional context. My first teaching appointment was in north western New South Wales in an area with a high Aboriginal population. That area was dealing with contact with non-Indigenous civilisation for well and truly over 150 years, and there were considerable social and cultural issues. The school was the centre point in dealing with a lot of those issues.
I was very fortunate to be professionally developed by a number of teachers of excellence. I remember one in particular, when I was working in a behaviour management unit, and that teacher started my professionalization around FASD. It was quite alarming in identifying anecdotally, through physical characteristics of children, those children in my care who had been affected by alcohol.
I then moved to the Northern Territory, and it was a great move and one into frontier country well and truly, not only in the education pathway I had chosen, but also in this country’s total development. I brought learnings from my background and experience in north western New South Wales. I remember being pleased to see the absence of what I had identified in that north western community and that school cohort, but today I cannot say that is the same case.
I started that journey in Tennant Creek. I had to stay in town for 12 months whilst the infrastructure was being prepared for a school I was recruited to open, and it was probably the best move that ever happened. I was put into an Indigenous transition unit of the then Kargaru Primary School. I was working with great staff, dynamic staff, a lot of Indigenous people and I employed some of the age old methods of teaching. One of those was the classic ‘show and tell’ in the morning to get kids speaking and listening.
I will never forget a female child who was, I would say, about seven years of age – this is in 1980 – who shyly came to the front to share her news with the class. She told us her mother had a baby the night before. I stereotyped it and based it on my knowledge and my family – once again my mother – and created an oral text around celebrating that birth. I said it would be wonderful for the child to visit her mother at the hospital. The reply was, ‘Oh no, the baby was not born in the hospital, the baby was born outside the Tennant Creek Hotel’.
I made some inquiries through the school’s senior staff and some local knowledge to find out if that was true. I was informed it was; the baby’s birth commenced outside the Tennant Creek Hotel. The mother was assisted by an ambulance, eventually the child was delivered and, thankfully, was in the Tennant Creek Hospital with the mother, and mum and baby were both fine. However, to this day I still shudder at the thought of what was happening in the mum’s life and the life of the child in utero and, consequently, after the birth. It highlighted the impact of alcohol misuse, the lack of education and awareness and those devastating impacts of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. It travelled with me and was, once again, at the forefront of my agenda to try to reduce any possible disadvantage to achieving normal child growth and development for all Territory children.
It was not only an Indigenous issue, because I knew of intravenous drug users with families in the western suburbs of Sydney. I knew high risk behaviour and, for some of them, trying to deal with their addictions and go on the methadone program was also extremely high risk, especially around the production and nurturing of their children. It was not a black and white issue for me. It was across the board, relating to our children.
The journey of this parliament will be interesting and I am looking forward to it with the select committee. It was interesting to see the catalyst which, in some respects, created it and the question, ‘Why did the CLP government choose to act now?’ I think it goes to the ABC Lateline story, where the Attorney-General was being interviewed on national media and a comment was made about dozens of intellectually disabled Aboriginal people stuck in prison without conviction. The Attorney-General, in response, said:
The backlash to this became a very strong opposition nationally to the Northern Territory government’s proposal; words around prosecution and incarceration of pregnant drinkers were used, and the media used it as a story which permeated through our continent. This is a space in time we will move on from, and I am looking forward to that. The media will play an important role in the work of this committee, the report to parliament and the government’s policy development because they need to be educated and made aware of this issue. The more focused they are, the better the community will be in its information and awareness.
Back home in the Northern Territory, the Attorney-General then conducted some more media, talked about the issue and started to move on from the original Lateline story into the area we have gone to today. I commend the Attorney-General for getting to this point, but in getting there it also created some good dialogue from experts.
Experts came forward and advised the Northern Territory community and politicians that there are very specific learnings about foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, there are very important interventions and that, essentially, it is best dealt with through a process of embracing the family – both the immediate and extended family – the community, and that process should be underpinned by education and awareness. When we talk about education and awareness and we talk about the family, we definitely talk about the mother, the father, the immediate family, the extended family and the medical and social service support network.
We are no longer talking about the lock them up policy or the lock them up approach; we are talking about a well-referenced, evidence-based approach that will be facilitated through this select committee. We already have some important community groups and individuals on record, and they will hopefully be referenced throughout this committee as the common theme is to oppose any criminalisation of drinking and deal with those causes.
A select committee of parliament represents politicians getting it right, and one of those important stakeholders who made comment was on ABC Darwin radio, on Kate O’Toole’s program on 18 March. That was Professor Elizabeth Elliott, a professor of paediatrics and child health at Westmead children’s hospital, who made comments on the ABC program Q&A, and the discussion that was generated from the Attorney-General’s appearance on the Lateline program. Professor Elliott, in a very brief comment on radio, said that the suggestion put forward by Mr Elferink is a simplistic approach.
She added that it is more important to understand why women are drinking during pregnancy and that assistance should be provided to help pregnant women stop drinking alcohol. She went on to say that although education on foetal alcohol syndrome is a slow process, it is necessary.
She also said that limiting access to alcohol, limiting alcohol advertising and identifying women who have had alcohol issues early, could help avoid foetal alcohol syndrome.
In other words, the professor goes into a number of areas that are important to address in this huge issue, a big, complex problem, a problem of our society and a problem growing within our society. I will be very interested to participate as a member of the committee and learn, through empirical evidence, what is happening and what governments can do to play a role around preventing that.
We need to turn our attention to the experts, and one within our ranks is Adele Gibson. I can immediately refer the Attorney-General and the committee to the innovative and very important work done around foetal alcohol spectrum disorder in Tennant Creek in the Barkly through the Anyinginyi health congress under the project management of Adele Gibson. I will read very quickly from a submission made by Adele Gibson to the committee secretary of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs in Canberra. This was in relation to the inquiry into the harmful use of alcohol in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities:
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move the member be granted an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr McCARTHY: Madam Speaker, I thank the member:
That was followed up by a number of media interviews conducted in Alice Springs. I am pleased to say Adele Gibson moved from Tennant Creek to Alice Springs with her family and is still a Territorian who can contribute to this debate and research among a lot of other Territory, national and internationally recognised experts.
The Anyinginyi health corporation, in Tennant Creek’s FASD project, received further funding from the government. Unfortunately, these funding rounds start and then conclude – there are not enough dollars to continue. But, the Anyinginyi health corporation has chosen to continue it under its own resources. There are some significant projects now that the Tennant Creek and Barkly community has been made aware of.
It is a very powerful experience when you see a group like the Stronger Sisters group or other young Territorians in Tennant Creek featuring in what is a very relevant, exciting and informative education and awareness-based approach to getting the message out. When you have teenagers spreading the word and sharing their learnings on this issue you start to see the real grassroots impact and change.
I welcome the opportunity to participate, the work the committee will do, the learning it will undergo and the opportunity to report back to parliament, and in time we will have an incredible input into government policy that will translate across a number of portfolio areas. As Adele said, this is not just an issue about education or a child’s education; this is about lifelong community involvement, engagement and learning.
In looking at the holistic nature of this challenge we are embarking on, I would once again like to put on the public record somebody who articulates some very serious challenges which relate to the FASD area.
This comes from the Weekend Australian 2 February 2014 and is an article saying the key to Aboriginal health lies in improving conditions from infancy, not in funding cuts. It is by Ernest Hunter, and I will pick up the story where he is talking specifically about the challenges we are faced with in the Aboriginal community:
Madam Speaker, we are embarking on something extremely significant. I also acknowledge the member for Nelson. It is a privilege to be in this House and be part of what can be a defining moment in improving the lives of Territory families.
Debate suspended.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr STYLES (Young Territorians): Madam Speaker, I have listened to contributions from other members in the House and am very impressed with the support from all in relation to what is happening with this issue. I would like to add some of my own experiences and reiterate the importance of looking at this and gaining as much evidence as possible to inform not only ourselves, but also the public.
As someone who worked in the community for many years, I worked with people with foetal alcohol spectrum disorder and saw the tragic circumstances some of them found themselves in through no fault of their own. I looked at a Western Australia report of the Education and Health Standing Committee on Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder: the invisible disability dated September 2012. That body of work, sadly, reiterates things members are talking about in this House.
As a school-based police officer I worked with young people diagnosed with what was then known as foetal alcohol syndrome, although the issue is much broader than that. It is sad to see these young people’s inability to learn, concentrate or participate in what most of us in this House might call a normal life, and this inhibits them gaining a good education and good outcomes in the job market. A lot cannot get jobs. They find themselves in a variety of situations where they are down and out and get involved in a whole range of criminal, immoral or down right wrong issues and lifestyles.
From my previous days and experience in working with people with this problem, I agree with all the things members on both sides of the House have said in this debate. I encourage all those people who listen to these debates and read Hansard to get on board and support this initiative and do whatever they can to bring whatever evidence, stories, solutions and ideas they may have to this committee so we might become better informed and add to the debate on the issue.
Thank you.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I am by no means any expert on this disorder and know it is a problem. I completely agree with the member for Nelson, who said it is not just a problem for Indigenous people. I also heard one of the other members – it might have been the member for Barkly – talking about cigarettes and other drugs. That is of concern to all of us – pregnant women smoking and taking drugs, as well as young people involved in that.
I think back to when my wife was pregnant; I am going back to the 1970s. In those days we drank a lot, and I am not talking about me personally; I am talking about people at that time. We would often drink and drive, and since that time we have all become more aware of the impacts of drugs, alcohol and so forth. It is time this parliament had a close look at it.
The member for Wanguri also raised the issue of not just the unborn child – I think I raised that in our wing meeting – but this disorder will create other problems for us. These people will be adults in years to come, so it is not only looking at a pregnant mother drinking, it is about what to do with people who currently have it.
I know one fellow who I have a lot of time for – one of the nicest people – who lives at Nauiyu. I will not say his name, but he is affected by this. It affects people in different ways. It does not make them aggressive or angry. This fellow probably cannot count the number of fingers on his hands, but he has very acute vision. If you take him up in a plane he can almost spot a pin in a haystack on the ground. Whether this comes out of it I do not know, but I looked at that as a positive. It is something we have to look at – the people who have this disorder, if we want to call it a disorder – as they get older.
I am concerned about this committee – all the committees – and the resources we need to put in. Everyone in this House needs to think about this. The committee people have a high workload and if we give this the proper attention it needs, the people on this side - the people with the purse strings – need to make sure this committee is resourced properly.
I look forward to doing it. I do not understand the problem completely, but it is a problem. I look forward to finding out what it is, and will go into it with a very open mind.
Mr ELFERINK (Children and Families): Madam Speaker, I thank honourable members for referring to me as the Attorney-General through this, but I bring this in with my child protection hat on primarily.
Whilst the Attorney-Generalship strays into this area I suspect it does so remotely and, having listened to other members today, I suggest my Attorney-Generalship will stray into this area in the most remote way, if at all. I will pick up on a few comments made during the course of this debate.
I pick up on the matter raised publicly prior to this debate coming into the House. This was the use of prosecutions to provide forms of restraint on pregnant women.
The only reason I said this during the interview was because I would see it as a means to an end, if it was to be done at all. The means to an end is the nature of restraint one might contemplate, if at all, but it would only be a means to an end and if the commentary is any yardstick to go by, it would be a clumsy way to proceed.
The only reason I do not rule it out at this stage is because I do not want to pre-empt anything the committee might look at but I already suspect, on the basis of what I have heard today, it will be roundly dismissed by committee members on both sides of the argument as well as the Independent, which is fine. It does not bother me in the least that it will be roundly dismissed.
If the committee determines to look at it and dismiss it that is cool; send it away and it never rears its head again. It was only a means to an end. There are other means by which you can reach the same end, if that is what the committee chooses to look at or give government and me advice on.
Whilst the committee will be looking at FASD – a problem in the community, the extent of which is yet to be determined – I do not want it to artificially raise hopes either. This is not the sort of thing which is instantly struck away because a committee has looked into it. Much more must be done than simply looking at the problem for it to go away. One of the things we must be very careful of as politicians on both sides of the House is raising expectations because there are limited capacities, even with the powers of government, to deal with certain issues in our community. We have both, as oppositions and governments in this House, struggled with those social and community type problems we deal with.
Yes, it is an important debate to have. Yes, we must ask the questions, but let us be careful about raising expectations. There is a long way to go, and if the experience of other jurisdictions is any yardstick, it is an extremely long way to go. But we must make a start, and that is essentially what we are arguing for here.
I am happy, at the risk of pre-empting any findings, to almost rule out the idea of a criminal justice response simply because it is apparent from almost everything we have heard that it is a poor fit, and I accept that. That is a reasonable proposition, but it still leaves me with a very important question as the minister for child protection, and this is something I would specifically like the committee to look at.
If the answer is it should be about supporting families – I am not saying it should not be – if the answer is it must be about education – I am not saying it should not be – if the answer is some sort of inclusive process, there will be individuals who will, irrespective of all the education in the world, irrespective of all the other responses in the world, continue to cascade through the system and ignore whatever we are attempting to do on their behalf. If that person is cascading through the system I ask the committee to look at one issue: what should our response be to that person who cascades through the system and ignores all warnings and all attempts at support?
That is the question I am asking. Specifically, the question I would really like the committee to look at is: where does my duty – and this is what the member for Nelson referred to in particular – as minister for child protection start? Yes, I appreciate all the health implications we are talking about: family health; social health; the health of the mother; and the health of the unborn child. Where does my responsibility start? I will closely monitor the committee on this issue, because I will be seeking guidance from the committee on the answer to that very important question.
We, as a community, expect parents to look after kids. We, as a community, appreciate and understand we take children away from their parents when the parent fails to look after them, and we occasionally do that very close to the time of birth for a number of reasons, and there are sound, good reasons to do it. The question we have before us is not a right to life question, but a right to an opportunity. The member for Stuart raised the issue in debate. She talked about the right to an opportunity, and that is essentially what is weighing upon my mind as a member of this House.
What is the right of a child, who will be born, to have opportunity before them? Many people will talk about equality and the need to have equality before the law, but I also believe that, as far as possible, there should be equality of opportunity. If, because of the actions of a mother, there is a diminishing of equality of opportunity for a person who will be born, what is my duty as the minister for child protection at that point?
This, I suspect, is the question the committee will struggle with most deeply because it is the one I have struggled with most deeply. It is quite deliberate that I have started this conversation in the community, because I would like to know what the community thinks about my duty. There will be a variance of opinion, and I have already seen this in the public commentary. The variance in opinion will not only be human rights arguments, but there will be straight up and down economic arguments.
The cost of rearing a person born with FASD – I think the figure used by the member for Barkly was $2m – is a substantial impost and it will, invariably, not be borne by the mother, it will be borne by the community. The community, therefore, has a right to ask, and this is why I ask this question: what is that cost and how does that cost balance off against the rights of the mother carrying the child who has determined to have that child? That is a very important question we should ask ourselves. I listened very carefully to the member for Barkly’s contribution on this issue, and it is something we have to ask. Yes, it is a money question.
The point is, if this problem is as prevalent as some people in this House would have us believe, then $2m per child over 10 children is $20m, and that figure was in 2007 or 2009 …
Mr McCarthy: 2007.
Mr ELFERINK: 2007, so it is already higher. You would assume it is already substantially higher here.
Those are other questions we have to ask ourselves. That is a rights argument, where we have to balance off rights of one person against another. That is the challenge before this committee. The committee will receive, doubtlessly, many submissions talking about education and that this should be done, and there is a medical response over here.
I am not saying for one second you should not hear that evidence, but the committee must also take on the very great, grave and burdensome challenge of asking itself these hard questions and seeking guidance from experts in the field, such as medical experts. There are also other experts who may give evidence to the committee, such as religious figures or whatever. They may be economists who give evidence in relation to this. You may choose to take evidence from people in the Health department who can tally up how much it will cost in today’s dollar terms to look after a child who will suffer from the day they are born until the age of 70. These are questions I hope the committee will look at, because it covers the field.
If we find individuals who ignore all warnings for the sake of pursuing their addiction, how do we deal with them? That has to be looked at. I will welcome all other observations, and I am not dismissing the other observations, but that is a very critical question for the committee to look at. I ask it to look very closely. When it takes evidence, particularly on those issues – I will be keeping an eye on the evidence this committee collects and reading the transcripts. I presume most of it will be transcribed. I will be reading those transcripts very carefully, because I confess it is beyond the capacity of my wisdom to come up with a solution independently. I hope other people turn their minds to these very specific and important questions.
I heard the member for Nelson struggle to describe it as a disorder or whatever. Call it an affliction if you like. An affliction is often something which is done to a person rather than a disability they have suffered as a result of Mother Nature or some other conduct independent of themselves. This is an affliction which, by all measure, is a worrying one for the future of our community.
Those are my issues, particularly as the minister for child protection. At the risk of pre-empting the committee, I can take off my Attorney-General’s hat entirely and look at it as a child protection issue. However, there is also the health aspect that needs to be understood, as well as economic aspects into the future.
I state on the record my thanks to the opposition, the Independent member and everybody who has contributed to this debate. I thank you for starting the debate in the way I had hoped it would be started, with a sense of sobriety, temperance and measured comment.
I say to committee members that I suspect there will be times when you are taking evidence in relation to this important issue when your measured response will be the only measured thing in the room. Hold on to that because, ultimately, it is not about us, it is not about this House, it is about the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory.
I will advise the House of the membership tomorrow, if that suits the opposition.
Motion agreed to.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr TOLLNER (Local Government and Regions): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This bill is another example of how government is continually listening to people and taking action to improve local government. These amendments address various matters which have been raised by stakeholders, LGANT and the councils. I will now run through the main changes this bill will make.
In relation to the notification of council member vacancies, there has been a loophole in the Local Government Act. No time limit was stipulated as to when the CEO of a council must notify the Electoral Commissioner of a council member vacancy to trigger the calling of a by-election. The bill fixes this by providing that council CEOs must notify the Electoral Commissioner as soon as practicable and, in any event, within 10 days of becoming aware of the vacancy.
In relation to voting at council meetings, the act will now make it mandatory for a council member to cast a vote. Previously a council member has been able to avoid voting and thereby not declare their position on an issue. The electorate has a right to know where its elected council members stand on matters that affect them. Further, where there is an equality of vote and the Chair has a casting vote, the Chair must exercise that vote. This will ensure votes are exercised when they should be and clear decisions are made.
This bill makes a number of changes in relation to disciplinary committees. Disciplinary committees hear complaints against council members for breaches of the code of conduct. The code provides for honesty and integrity, appropriate conduct, accountability and respect for confidentiality. It is vital the electorate has confidence in its elected council members and knows members can be held to account if they breach the code of conduct.
Anyone can complain if a council member breaches the code of conduct. It may be a matter so minor or frivolous that the disciplinary committee summarily dismisses the matter. At the other end of the scale, a disciplinary committee has the power to recommend that I, as Minister for Local Government and Regions, dismiss a council member.
The Local Government Act provides for the minister to constitute disciplinary committees by choosing one person from three classes: legal practitioners nominated by the Attorney-General; nominees of LGANT; and people the minister has nominated. There are currently three such committees. Having set committees has meant very little flexibility if a member of the disciplinary committee cannot participate for some reason.
The bill makes a change to the way disciplinary committees are formed. In future, the minister will appoint a pool of eligible disciplinary committee members from the three classes. When there is a complaint the agency will appoint a disciplinary committee to hear a matter by selecting three people, one person from each class from the pool. This will allow maximum flexibility to the hearing of complaints as efficiently as possible. It may be, for example, that a disciplinary committee needs to be formed in a region. Committees will be able to be formed immediately to respond to such a need.
The bill strengthens the powers of a disciplinary committee, providing committees with powers to require people to give evidence. Failure to abide by a lawful requirement of the committee will be an offence with a maximum penalty of 100 penalty units. To indicate the seriousness of a breach of the code of conduct, the maximum penalty has been raised to 120 penalty units.
I have great confidence in the elected members of local government. I know they work hard for the people who elect them. I hope the powers of the disciplinary committee will be rarely, if ever, used, but it is necessary to have such a body with appropriate powers to do what is required of it.
The next change the bill will make is in relation to councils having a caretaker policy. Councils will have to have a caretaker policy to cover the lead-up to a local government general election. This is good practice, just as other levels of government have caretaker policies.
It is a good thing there is portability of long service leave amongst local government bodies. This encourages cross-fertilisation and facilitates movement of staff. There has been a problem, however, in that there was no cut off point by which the benefit of portability, when moving from one local government job to another, had to be claimed. The bill introduces a new duty for a local government employer to ask a new employee, ideally within five days of commencing employment, whether they have been employed by a Northern Territory local government body within the previous three months. If the employee declares they have, the provisions allowing portability are triggered. There is now a time limit and the employee must respond within 28 days if they want to claim this benefit.
Where in the past it was not possible for council members to decrease their allowances once they had been set for the financial year, this bill will allow them to do so. In a case where a council thinks it should revisit the amount members are paid, the amount can be reduced.
Conditional rating is a matter which raises debate from various perspectives. Conditional rating applies to pastoral leases and mining tenements. Apart from the rate capping involved, a big issue for councils has been the cumbersome method in which they have had to apply to rate the conditionally rateable land. If I, as the Minister for Local Government and Regions, do not receive an application from a council by the end of February, that council may not rate conditionally rateable land in the coming financial year. This is not the intent of this government. The intent is councils may make submissions, but at the end of the day, after consulting with the minister for the pastoral sector and the minister for the mining sector, the Minister for Local Government and Regions advises the maximum rate which may be levied.
After the relevant sections commence, councils may make submissions, but they do not have to specifically apply to be able to rate conditionally rateable land. The timing will be brought forward a month so the notice of conditional rates will be made by the minister by the end of April rather than the end of May. This will assist councils in planning and setting their budgets. In order for this to happen in a timely way, any submission councils choose to make must be made by the end of January. If a council makes no submission it will still be able to impose conditional rates as notified by the minister. Further, councils will no longer be restricted by guidelines as to the kind and form of submissions which they can put forward.
Still on the subject of rates and charges, I note the definition of school – as schools are exempt from rates – has been improved so it relates to the definitions in the Education Act. Further, when a council makes its declaration of rates and charges, the council will have to state the purpose of the charge. A requirement has been that councils have various information on their website. However, councils raise the issue there was no indication of how long material had to remain on a website. It was not clear whether information had to remain on a website for eternity. New section 200A of the act will fix this problem. Generally speaking, documents must be on the website while they are current and remain on a council’s website for three years after they are no longer current.
One question which has been asked a number of times in relation to the 2008 act is what a surcharge consists of. A surcharge may be imposed by a council when the agency is satisfied, on the report of a local government inspector, that a council has suffered loss as a result of dishonesty or serious illegality.
The council can impose a surcharge on the person whose dishonest or illegal act gave rise to the loss. This bill explains that a surcharge must not exceed the amount of the loss suffered by the council, together with the amount incurred by the council in recovering the surcharge.
LGANT has been working with councils to help them understand the requirements of the act and the obligations of a council to scrutinise its own affairs.
One way councils do this is by having an audit committee, as stipulated in the Local Government
(Accounting) Regulations. As a result of regulations from a number of quarters, including LGANT and both local government advisory committees, the regulations are being amended so the Chair of an audit committee must not be a member of council or a member of the council’s staff. This will promote transparency in process of self-scrutiny.
Finally, this bill contains a number of amendments to the Schedule to make references to local government areas, councils and local authorities consistent across the Northern Territory statute book.
I commend the bill to honourable members, and I table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
DARWIN RATES AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 72)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr TOLLNER (Local Government and Regions): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This government is working hard to reform local government and get the legislation in order. This bill relates to the rating of the Darwin Rates Act area, which although not in a council area, is an industrial area where rates are levied by the Territory.
The prescribed area contains approximately 260 ratepayers and consists of the East Arm logistic precinct (previously referred to as the Trade Development Zone), part of the East Arm Port area and parts of adjacent areas including Berrimah, Tivendale and Wishart.
Under the act, I, as the Minister for Local Government and Regions, set the rates for the prescribed area. The rates are usually set to align with rates charged for light industrial areas by the City of Darwin or City of Palmerston councils.
As we are putting the local government legislation in order, we are putting this act in order too. This is a very old act, which began as an ordinance in 1971. It is definitely time to bring it into the 21st century.
The best way to deal with this legislation has been to align various provisions with the Local Government Act. The drafting introduces maximum flexibility, modernises many parts of the provisions and repeals provisions that are no longer needed, both in the act and the regulations.
The previous description of the area covered by the act has been translated into a map and is referred to by its compiled plan number. The map reflects the exact area that was previously covered in the description contained in the regulations. While it will be possible to declare additional prescribed areas in the future, the current prescribed area is not being expanded and no new areas are being declared by this legislation.
The name of the act has been confusing because it sounds as if it relates to City of Darwin rates. Of course, rates for the City of Darwin are set by the council under the Local Government Act and do not come under this act.
To clear up the confusion and for practical flexibility, the name of the act is being changed to the Northern Territory Rates Act. As the Darwin Rates Act is outdated and has rarely been given attention, all the flexible ways of rating contained in the Local Government Act have been imported.
There can be different bases of rates, differential rating and flat rating. All of the exemptions under the Local Government Act have been brought in as well.
These amendments also enable me, as the Minister for Local Government and Regions, to set the interest rate for overdue rates. In the current act, interest on overdue rates is called a penalty and is set at 1.5% for each month. It is more practical and more in line with the Local Government Act if the setting of the interest rate occurs at the same time the rates are declared. I intend to set the interest rate at a level comparative to the interest rate set by municipal councils.
The penalty provisions have been modernised and the penalties are now in tune with modern policy on such matters. The regulations have been amended to abolish outdated forms and, as I mentioned previously, replace an almost incomprehensible description with a map reference.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members, and I table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 13 February 2014.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I thank the Auditor-General for his report. I was a member of the Public Accounts Committee for five years, and that work is now being done from our side by the members for Nightcliff and Wanguri. I found the current Auditor-General, Frank McGuiness, during my five years, to be an incredibly professional servant of this Assembly. It was a pleasure working with him. I am not sure how long the current Auditor-General has left of his term, but he has definitely been a very good servant to this Assembly.
The issue of most significance and importance in this report is the section on the use of fuel cards and, in particular, the use of fuel cards by members of this House. There is no mention of members’ names, only vehicle registrations.
Members will be aware I have, in the past, expressed concerns in relation to the fuel bill and use of a fuel card by the member for Arnhem. I believe the relevant vehicle in the Auditor-General’s report on the Department of the Legislative Assembly is car 21. The vehicle is mentioned on several occasions throughout the Auditor-General’s report on pages 97, 98, 101 and 107. Several anomalies and concerns in relation to this vehicle are outlined.
Members are entitled to the use of a taxpayer-funded vehicle, but members are also obliged to account to taxpayers for the appropriate use of the vehicle. Members’ vehicles are available for parliamentary business, electorate business and private use, but there must always be proper accountability, and each member must be individually responsible and accountable.
It would be easy for me to rehash all the concerns I outlined last year in relation to the member for Arnhem’s fuel card. Over a period of considerable time last year we went through a significant number of concerns we had that emerged through the Estimates Committee process. We had concerns about the amount of fuel purchased, where it was purchased and who was using the card.
However, my views and concerns are not the most important. What is important is the member for Arnhem’s account of the use of her card. The member for Arnhem claims she has done nothing wrong. She has an opportunity now, with this debate on the Auditor-General’s report on the floor of parliament, to speak publicly on this issue and explain to this Assembly what happened, and respond to issues raised. The floor of the parliament is open to her to provide a full explanation, and I believe this is a very good opportunity for her that she should take. That is, essentially, all I am saying on the matter today because I believe we are now in the member for Arnhem’s court. We have said what we have said, and this is an opportunity for the member for Arnhem to respond.
I note the Department of the Legislative Assembly accepts the recommendations of the Auditor-General to improve reporting and accountability with respect to fuel cards. We thank the Auditor-General for his report and for the work he has done, and look forward to hearing, hopefully, from the member for Arnhem.
Mrs PRICE (Community Services): Madam Speaker, I speak to the Auditor-General’s February 2014 report tabled in the Assembly. First, I wish to thank the Auditor-General, Mr Frank McGuiness, for the work he does. It is often a thankless task, and I can imagine quite tedious at times dealing with all those figures. I thank you, Frank. I am sure the public appreciates you being the guardian of their funds and making sure we spend that money wisely.
The Auditor-General’s report mentions agencies within my portfolio responsibilities three times.
First is the Nitmiluk Katherine Gorge national park board, which comes under the Parks and Wildlife Commission. I am also the lucky local member for the park. Before I return to Nitmiluk park, I would like to give the House a few statistics about NT Parks and Wildlife. There are 87 parks and reserves managed by the Parks and Wildlife Commission across the Northern Territory. That equates to over 4.4m ha of land and includes 15 national parks and two marine parks, Cobourg Marine Park and Limmen Bight Marine Park.
In the last 12 months, there were nearly three million visitors to our major parks. What I am most proud of is that 32 of our parks are jointly managed with traditional owners. These joint management arrangements provide local jobs and local business opportunities for Aboriginal people. I am hoping to continue increasing that figure with a number of other joint management arrangements being worked on right now. Our parks are internationally famous for their attractions, but also their unique fauna, flora and geological features. Cobourg Peninsula, for example, was designated the world’s first site under the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance.
Turning to Nitmiluk, the board was formed in 1989 under the Nitmiluk (Katherine Gorge) National Park Act. The board is responsible for managing the nearly 300 000 ha national park owned by the Jawoyn Aboriginal people. Most of us are aware that this park has the most amazing features, beautiful sandstone country with deep gorges, broad valleys and numerous significant cultural sites. The deep gorge carved through ancient sandstone by the Katherine River is the central attraction of the park. Other features include local accommodation, a boat ramp and boat tours, camping, canoeing, fishing, helicopter tours, amazing kiosk and visitor centre, picnic area, swimming and world-renowned walking tracks.
The country you walk through is Jawoyn country, which changes from savanna grasslands to rocky escarpment outcrops and rainforest pockets. It is a challenging trail with beautiful swimming holes at every campsite and amazing Jawoyn rock art which can be viewed at the amphitheatre. It is an amazing part of the Northern Territory and one of our most internationally known locations.
As the report notes, the purpose of the board is to manage this fantastic park and provide for the management and control of certain other land. Nitmiluk National Park has been jointly managed by the Jawoyn people and the Northern Territory government since 1989, when the Jawoyn people won their land claim for the area. The park management was heralded as a model for joint management between Aboriginal people and governments across Australia.
The board is comprised of 30 members appointed by the Minister for Parks and Wildlife. Of the 30 members, eight are Aboriginal traditional owners of the park nominated by the Jawoyn Association. The position of board Chair is held by a Jawoyn traditional owner. The board also employs a number of Jawoyn people as rangers.
I am pleased to advise the audit of the financial statements of Nitmiluk Katherine Gorge National Park Board for the year ending 30 June 2012 resulted in an unqualified, independent audit opinion. The report did not identify any material weaknesses in controls, which is Auditor-General speak for, ‘Everything appeared to be okay’.
The report noted park revenue declined from $0.8m for 2010-11 to $0.6m for 2011-12. The revenue received was distributed to both the traditional owners, who received 60%, and the former Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport, NRETAS, which received the remaining 36% on behalf of the NT government. The report found that revenue dropped because of a drop in visitor numbers.
My colleague, the Minister for Tourism, has implemented the fantastic ‘Do the NT’ marketing campaign. As the minister has outlined to the House, ‘Do the NT’ is a new brand strategy for Tourism NT to better sell the Northern Territory and boost holiday visitor numbers. I agree with the minister that we live in one of the most spectacular places on the planet, with unique spiritual, cultural and natural attractions.
To improve visitor numbers and park revenue the Northern Territory government is investing an extra $8m into tourism. This shows the priority this government places on tourism in order to help build a bigger Territory economy and create more jobs. Our new brand position expresses a can-do attitude, which is part of the character Territorians have always embraced.
The Northern Territory government’s new Tourism Vision 2020 strategy aims to deliver $2.2bn in annual visitor spending to the Northern Territory’s economy by 2020. The first phase of the new campaign was rolled out across the east coast of Australia from August to September 2013. I look forward to working with my colleague, the Minister for Tourism, to see how we can better promote this great park to boost visitor numbers again. I also look forward to working with the new Chair of the Jawoyn Association, Lisa Mumbin, to develop more tourism and job opportunities through the board and the park. Jointly, we will continue to investigate ways to attract visitors back to the park and I look forward to seeing a much better outcome in the next financial year.
The next mention in the Auditor-General’s report is of the Cobourg Peninsula Sanctuary and Marine Park board. The Cobourg Peninsula Sanctuary and Marine Park board was formed in 1981 under the Cobourg Peninsula Aboriginal Land, Sanctuary and Marine Park Act. The board consists of eight members appointed by the minister, four of whom shall be members of the group and be appointed on the nomination of the land council. The park includes the entire peninsula, the surrounding waters of the Arafura Sea and Van Diemen Gulf and some of the neighbouring islands. It covers about 4500 km and served within the park areas are a mosaic of: sandy beaches; dunes and associated coastal grasslands; mangroves; rainforest patches; swamps; lagoons; coral reefs; seagrass; seagrass meadows; and rich marine life.
This is an internationally important area as it was the first park in the world to be declared under the Ramsar Convention because of its significant wetlands. The area has an interesting ancient and contemporary history. Archaeologists generally agree Aboriginal people have been living in the area for 40 000 years. Macassan traders visited the area regularly for centuries. In 1838, the early British settlement of Victoria was established at Port Essington and lasted 10 years. Various industries have since developed including pastoral, pearling, timber and tourist industries.
The park lies within the clan estates of the Iwaidja speaking people of the Cobourg Peninsula. The traditional owners are continuing spiritual links with the land and sea. Their ancestors from the creation era, Dreamtime, created the land and all it contains. The park contains cultural landscapes which have been shaped and managed by cultural traditions and translated as: Garig, local language name; Gunak, land; Barlu, deep water. Recreational activities include fishing, walking, camping and four-wheel-driving.
I am pleased to advise the audit of financial statements of the board for the year ending 30 June 2012 resulted in an unqualified independent audit opinion. The report did not identify any material weaknesses in controls, which is Auditor-General speak for, ‘Everything appeared to be okay’. I note the report outlines that revenue dropped by some $10 000 in the 2012-13 financial year; however, payments to traditional owners have increased and operational costs have decreased, which is a great result. This has led to a $25 000 profit in the 2013 year. Well done to the board and the Parks and Wildlife Commission for this result.
Jointly, I will continue to investigate ways to attract visitors back to the park, and I look forward to a much better park revenue outcome in the next financial year.
Another area within my portfolio responsibility which is mentioned in the Auditor-General’s Report is the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority, or AAPA. AAPA is an independent statutory organisation established under the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act. AAPA is responsible for overseeing the protection of Aboriginal sacred sites on land and sea across the whole of Australia’s Northern Territory.
AAPA is based in Darwin, but also has a regional office in Alice Springs. AAPA is governed by a 12-member board consisting mainly of senior male and female Aboriginal custodians from across the Northern Territory nominated by the two land councils.
While AAPA is not often talked about in this House, its role is very important to the Northern Territory. As I said previously, AAPA balances the requirements of the Sacred Sites Act, which are to manage a practical balance between the recognised need to preserve and enhance Aboriginal cultural tradition in relation to certain land in the Territory, and the aspirations of Aboriginal and all other peoples of the Territory for their economic, cultural and social advancement.
The way AAPA does this is through issuing authority certificates which provide legal indemnities for any works carried out in accordance with conditions on the certificate. The authority plays an important part in facilitating infrastructure and development projects in the NT.
In the last 12 months AAPA provided a total of 280 authority certificates across a range of broad project types, including supporting and facilitating road work projects throughout the Northern Territory such as: maintenance and upgrades of numerous highways; supporting and facilitating Power and Water and sewerage projects throughout the Northern Territory; supporting other infrastructure and development projects through the Northern Territory, including development on Aboriginal communities; supporting and facilitating mining and exploration projects throughout the Northern Territory, including projects by WDR Iron Ore Pty Ltd for the Roper Bar iron ore project, Sherwin Iron Ltd and Vista Gold Australia Pty Ltd; and supporting and facilitating tourism-related projects throughout the Northern Territory.
AAPA also deals with requests by the general public for access to records of specific land or sea areas in the Northern Territory.
In 2012-13, the authority responded to 584 requests for information from individuals, companies, land councils, the mining industry, the NT and Commonwealth governments.
Through this service, the public has the opportunity to view a register of authority certificates. Information available includes a list of authority certificates granted or refused for a specified area and a register of sacred sites information on the location and extent of registered sites for a specified area. An abstract of records provides a written abstract and map of all known recorded and registered sites for a specified area.
AAPA is also responsible for the registering of sacred sites. In 2012-13, the authority registered 18 sites across the Territory. For custodians, the site registration process offers strong protection for sacred sites, and for the public this process provides appropriate information about the location and features of the sites. AAPA is not only about sacred sites; it also acts as a Northern Territory government agency to preserve Aboriginal culture.
In December 2012, AAPA handed the Papunya report to the Minister for Arts and Museums. The report investigated the secret and ceremonial nature of the Papunya Boards, a collection of the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory. The report greatly enhanced information about the collection, and will assist MAGNT in its future management of the collection. AAPA plays a vital role in our goal to develop the Territory and, as responsible minister, I want to see AAPA take on a more proactive role in this area.
AAPA is currently progressing over 100 development-related applications for authority certificates. These include a number of major projects such as the proposed Katherine to Gove pipeline, the NBN in Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine, Darwin and Nhulunbuy and the Ord Stage 3 project.
AAPA is also working on developing a protocol with appropriate custodians to allow the issue of authority certificates without consultations. This protocol would see certificates being issued within an agreed set of conditions for identified areas of high development. The successful implementation of the process will deliver significant benefits for users of the authority’s services by reducing time frames for the issuing of sacred site clearance, while still maintaining high standards of sacred site protections.
The authority has begun working towards a process of changes to the Sacred Sites Act. This initiative will improve functional efficiencies in the administration of the act, achieve red tape reductions through improved processes and capacity to transfer site clearances from one entity to another, and provide certainty for custodians and developers.
The AAPA is funded through Northern Territory government payments, as well as revenue obtained through issuing certificates. As part of his functions, the Auditor-General conducted an external compliance audit of AAPA for the 2012-13 financial year. As noted in his report, the audit concentrated on the use of the Treasurer’s Directions, procurement directions and vehicle odometer recording.
The Auditor-General deleted a number of very minor issues with AAPA’s compliance with those directions. The Auditor-General made recommendations to AAPA on how to enhance internal systems in order to comply. The CEO of AAPA has commenced implementing those recommendations to address the very minor matters raised by the Auditor-General.
Once again, thank you Mr Auditor-General for your reports. I look forward to working with my agency to ensure public monies are spent correctly.
Mr STYLES (Transport): Madam Speaker, I will speak about the good work done by a couple of government business divisions in my portfolios. The first is the Construction Division, a government business division that sits within the Department of Infrastructure. The Auditor-General, who I have had the pleasure of knowing for some years now, is very dedicated to what he does. I am quite confident in saying you will not find a better person. You may find some equals, but you will not find a person better at what he does, more committed and professional.
The Auditor-General’s report on the Construction Division for the year ending 30 June 2013 resulted in an unqualified audit opinion which, for those who are reading this, is a very good outcome. The audit did not identify any material weakness in the controls or checks and balances we have in the Construction Division.
The report also indicated the total income for Construction Division charges in 2012-13 decreased by 11.4% compared to the prior year’s income. This is mainly attributed to a reduction in programs. For those who may not understand, the Construction Division, as a government business division, charges a percentage of the overall value of the work it performs as a management fee to project manage the various contracts and issues they have to deal with.
To contain costs, the Construction Division reduced expenditure in employee expenses and the purchase of goods and services by 12.1% compared to the previous year. A number of employees have left, and the Department of Infrastructure has done a great job of moving people into areas to fill voids where they were and to also handle the reduction in income.
The result of the expenditure containment was a realised surplus for 2012-13 of $0.22m, which I might add is an improvement when compared to the previous year’s $0.59m.
The Department of Infrastructure is included in the Treasurer’s annual financial statement as part of the general government sector, which was qualified due to the uncertainty surrounding the valuation of work in progress in relation to SIHIP. The Department of Infrastructure delivers elements of SIHIP; however, it is not accountable for any financial reporting on works in progress for that program.
I would like to congratulate those people who work in the Construction Division for an outstanding job of delivering services to our government agencies in a proper and timely manner and doing so within budget. It is a very good outcome for those members.
I would like to move on to another government business division sitting within the Department of Transport, the Darwin Bus Service. The audit was completed on the financial year statements of the Darwin Bus Service for the year ending 30 June 2013, and the Auditor-General has issued an unqualified audit report on the financial statements of the Darwin Bus Service. Again, there are some very fine people in that government business division who I have had the pleasure of meeting and working with as Minister for Transport for just over 12 months. They are a very professional group of people and when we look at the results of the Auditor-General’s audit of the Darwin Bus Service, with an unqualified audit report on the financial statements, it is also apparent.
These financial statements were publicly reported in the Department of Transport’s 2013 annual report. The Darwin Bus Service primarily receives its income from contracting bus services to the Department of Transport. The Department of Transport pays providers to provide a service throughout Darwin, Palmerston, the rural area and Alice Springs. There are also bus services in Nhulunbuy.
The Darwin Bus Service reported a reduced profit in this last financial year of $332 000 after tax compared with the previous year of $719 000 for that previous year. The reduction primarily relates to the impact of the enterprise bargaining agreement escalation on salaries. Therefore, the financial position of the Darwin Bus Service is such that it is primarily asset based and its bus fleet is owned outright. As at 30 June last year its cash balance was $3.5m, with $46.6m as the book value of its property, plant and equipment.
Calls for tenders have closed and are being assessed at this point for the privatisation of the bus services the Department of Transport will contract out. I look forward to seeing those tenders, but, generally, the Auditor-General gave those business divisions a clean bill of health and has reported very positively on the running of those government business divisions. I congratulate those people who work in that area for a fine job.
Mr CHANDLER (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Madam Speaker, I have a couple of comments on the Auditor-General’s February 2014 report, the audit findings and analysis of the financial statements for the year ending 30 June 2013. In my areas of responsibility, it did not identify any material weaknesses in controls; NT Build was the only thing mentioned this time around.
The audit opinion on the financial statements of NT Build for the year ending 30 June 2013 was qualified as follows:
As such, the Auditor-General was unable to satisfy himself …
The following comments were provided for incorporation into the February 2014 report to the Legislative Assembly in relation to the audit of NT Build.
Thank you.
Motion agreed to; report noted.
Continued from 12 February 2014.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I make my contribution to the Chief Minister’s statement on Indigenous economic development at an interesting time in this House where we have formulated a committee to look into a very important area of child health which relates to the Indigenous community.
I start by saying to the Chief Minister I encourage your policy making and government intervention into Indigenous economic development to specifically look at Indigenous health, because in your statement there is a lot of the same rhetoric around employment and training and economic outcomes we hear day in, day out. I encourage you to look into the reality of creating an Indigenous workforce in the Northern Territory which relates to good health and wellbeing.
The Chief Minister’s statement does not provide many solutions in this area, but he outlines a list of great challenges in child growth and development. He starts that section of the statement with:
He goes on to dot point some of those areas of great concern where government must intervene.
The Chief Minister says:
I agree with the Chief Minister; however, it goes back to one baseline and that is education and awareness. There is so much work to be done in preparing the Indigenous community of the Northern Territory for the great opportunities now online and coming online for the future.
There is a way to succeed in this area, and it is directly investing and directly creating that support base around health and wellbeing. In this House we have heard the challenges and needs of the Indigenous community of the Northern Territory, but I encourage the Chief Minister to focus on what the government can do, starting pragmatically at the early childhood level. When I say the early childhood level I mean the 0 to 8 years, because these are future Territorians from our Indigenous community who need to be supported and prepared.
The Chief Minister talks about all the indicators he has discussed for improving outcomes and finding a job. All these indicators are fine – they are spelt out in the statement – but, once again, it is so important we focus on education to training and employment.
Unfortunately, the statement goes back into the political slap. In one paragraph, it says:
Being a young Territorian yourself, Chief Minister, I could start quoting from 27 years of Country Liberal Party government in the Northern Territory. I could relate my contribution to the debate around education and training to employment with a story of the silver bullets – the caravan infrastructure that was set up in the Northern Territory for Indigenous kids in remote areas. I can personally tell you about checker plate steel steps where you could fry eggs for about four months of the year, and they were the entry points into these caravans for kids who had no shoes.
I can tell you stories about bringing a caravan into a remote community and setting it up as a school, with the message that if you do not conform we can put the wheels back on it and tow it out just as fast. We need to shift the dialogue, move on, leave the blame game behind and start to focus on what we can deliver.
In delivering education in the Northern Territory, and Indigenous education, reflect on a few policies that have been put in train and be careful of what your government is dismantling. Labor took seriously the education of our kids in the bush, with seven new high schools. There was none under previous CLP governments, and we wait to see what will happen under this one. There were 200 additional teachers and a job guarantee for all Year 12 graduates of bush schools. Labor made sure families in the bush had options, since it is reasonable for families to expect access to secondary schooling options without having to send their children hundreds of kilometres away because they have no choice. Labor established secondary education in remote communities and oversaw the graduating of over 150 young Territorians. Labor delivered improvements to every bush school, working with families to boost school attendance with the Every Child, Every Day policy.
Labor supported 13 Clontarf football academies for boys’ and girls’ engagement, mentoring and support programs at Casuarina Senior College, Dripstone, Sanderson and Nightcliff Middle Schools, Tennant Creek High School, and to help engage young Indigenous girls in schooling. Labor established remote trade training centres to build a local trades workforce in our bush towns.
NAPLAN: the percentage of Indigenous students achieving the national minimum standard in reading has increased in Years 3, 5 and 7 since 2008. Year 3 Indigenous students have shown the largest increase, with 39.6% achieving the national minimum standard in 2012 compared to 30.4% in 2008, an increase of 9.2%. These are small gains but heading in the right direction.
Of the 1209 students receiving their NTCET in 2012, 135, or 11%, identified as Indigenous. The 135 students comprised 21 females and 64 males. Each Indigenous student achieved their NTCET studying in their own community in 2012: Shepherdson College, one; Ramingining School, four; Yirrkala School, one; Gunbalanya School and West Arnhem College, two. Fifteen students in a remote location completed their NTCET at the Open Education Centre, and 10 of these students were from Gapuwiyak School. These students are all role models for their communities and show that remote secondary education works.
This is what I mean about moving forward. It is about being smarter, as the current minister said, but it is also about recognising important policies in train to create generational change. When you dismantle moves that are going forward fostering generational change, then you risk achieving what we all want, which is normal child growth and development, good education, education to training and employment and providing that self-determining factor for Indigenous Territorians.
It is so important we focus on our young people in Indigenous communities because they need that extra support and help. It is not just a political argument, it relates to health and education needs, particularly English as a second language. For most of the students we are talking about, English is a second, third or fourth language.
It is good to see the Chief Minister focusing on this statement with what the previous Labor government had in train and the direction in which the previous government was heading, that is, the use of a regional fly-in fly-out workforce. That was talked about, planned for and in full train under the previous government. We agree, Chief Minister, that we have to foster that because the big mining, construction and transport projects should be staffed by young people from regional and remote areas of the Northern Territory. When you have a project like the Ichthys project in Darwin, supported by a 3500-bed workers’ village, then it is achievable.
I am sorry we missed out on that fourth term, because I had done a lot of background work to make sure we had kids from the Barkly involved in that project. I encourage you, Chief Minister, to continue that momentum and negotiate, on my behalf, and use your very privileged position in the Northern Territory to ensure that happens, not only for kids from the Barkly, but kids from regional areas of Central Australia and the like.
I believe, Chief Minister, you definitely need to look at alternative pathway education programs, trade training centres and an enhancement of career counselling programs targeting that 15- to 17-year-old age group. You must be focused on that group. Unfortunately, we have seen cuts in staffing, a change in models and a refocus away from the middle schools area, supporting senior secondary. We have seen examples, for instance in Tennant Creek at the high school, where subject choice is now extremely limited because of staffing cuts.
We must continue to focus on new ways of doing business. We must get into the area of alternative pathway education because many of these kids are struggling with poor attendance in the primary area. This can be turned around with very targeted vocational and educational training models for young adolescents, and accelerating that learning into the skills they need to get the accreditation to get on to construction, mining and transport sites, to get into the real world and be mentored by the best in the world.
I seriously encourage the Chief Minister to start looking at that. I also encourage the Education minister to ask the department what its plans are.
The Chief Minister talks about wealth and wealth creation, and we have to start talking about demand sharing within communities. That is support around a young person who takes that step, leaves a regional or remote area, travels to a major project, is earning real wages and then returns into a traditional kinship system. We have to define ways to support that student by working with the whole family group – the immediate and extended family – to support that person so they see the real benefit in being the family leader, in going away and getting involved in that employment opportunity, and then coming home and being able to share reasonably within that traditional kinship group.
We need to engage with industry, we need to engage with families, and there is a great deal of work government, through its Departments of Education and Health, can achieve.
The Chief Minister’s statement is a going-to-do list, and this is the hollow rhetoric we continue to hear. We need some substance around that. It is far more important to get into the tin tacks of what is happening rather than what you will do after 18 months as a government, and in relative terms, half time in a government term.
We do not need hollow rhetoric in these statements giving us the philosophical and ideological position. We need to debate what is happening, what people are achieving and what departments are doing.
There are some interesting statistics around the Chief Minister’s aim to engage Indigenous Territorians in employment. I will quote from Eleanor Hall’s program, The World Today, on Radio National Canberra from 10 February 2014, where Hall explains that research from Deloitte Access Economics suggests billions of dollars could be added to the Australian economy if the Indigenous employment rate was improved. Reconciliation Australia claims the study builds the case for continued spending to address Indigenous disadvantage. The report found the NT economy would grow by 10%, NT government revenue by $7.2bn and expenditure decrease by $5bn. Leah Armstrong, CEO of Reconciliation Australia says there needs to be a more tailored approach to this, targeting specific regions.
ABC 24 Sydney, on 12 February 2014 said the Closing the Gap report shows there is still work to be done. Some of the data shows that only the NT is on track to close the mortality rate gap by 2030. The report shows a reduction in smoking rates, and argues for a continuation of nearly $2bn in funding aimed at improving early childhood development and health outcomes.
It needs investment. There is no way around that, but these reports show there should be targeted investment into new ways of doing, reflecting the modern Indigenous community and the young people today. These young people are tech savvy and are connected, via social media and multimedia, with what is going on in the world. For those young people who are more experienced in travel and their world view, we need to have new systems in place and a very specific focus coming through early childhood, from zero to eight years, through the middle schools and into senior secondary. These kids will create the generational change required to turn things around and deliver and improve the social and economic outcomes the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory so desires.
Another area I will touch on is the backward steps from government in investment; we can look at various federal programs which have been cut. The Abbott Liberal government in Canberra scrapped a host of funding for round five of the Regional Development Australia Fund, which is a retrograde step. We need those regional programs focused on the development of infrastructure to create jobs. If we train our young people, especially our Indigenous young people across the regions, we need regional infrastructure investment.
I will briefly touch on the contracts signed by the CLP. The Borroloola contract had a mention in Question Time today and the outcome is straightforward; there is infrastructure to support Motor Vehicle Registry services in Borroloola, it can be a great trial from this government. The minister needs to look seriously at it and has a head start. The CLP does not have to build the building, run the infrastructure program or the repair and maintenance programs around the building. All it needs is to pay its fair share in rent to set up an MVR service in Borroloola as a pilot to show how this can roll-out in regional areas.
I place on the public record my great concern around the Chief Minister, the member for Braitling, the Treasurer’s and the member for Port Darwin’s support for a nuclear waste dump at Muckaty Station. This is not important Indigenous economic development; it is a retrograde step and Country Liberal Party members need to have this debate. Do they stand up for Australia’s first purpose-built nuclear waste dump being in the Territory at Muckaty Station? The people of Blain will be aware of this support from the Country Liberal Party government and will need to articulate this issue as part of the by-election because when Australia’s intermediate to high level waste returns to the continent it will through Darwin and be trucked from the East Arm Logistics Precinct to a railhead. It will then travel through Palmerston before its journey to the proposed Muckaty site.
The Country Liberal Party needs to define this issue. Do members support it, like the Chief Minister and the member for Fong Lim, the Treasurer? Do they really support Australia’s first nuclear waste dump being imposed on the Northern Territory? Do they feel this is a link to Indigenous economic development? They need to articulate their position very clearly to the Northern Territory community.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I support this statement on Indigenous economic development in the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory government recognises the key to increasing Indigenous economic development is real jobs and investment. My portfolios of Mines and Energy, Primary Industry and Fisheries, Land Resource Management and Essential Services cover many of the sectors and industries that have real potential to create lasting economic development and jobs for Indigenous people across the Territory.
These portfolios are perhaps best placed in the Northern Territory government to initiate support and develop programs for Indigenous economic development activities in remote and regional areas.
My Department of Mines and Energy supports new initiatives to drive Indigenous economic development by adopting responsible policy initiatives that encourage economic development in regional areas with obvious benefits for Indigenous people. We have seen, in a number of significant Northern Territory mining operations, real opportunities for Indigenous people, both through direct employment and from flow-on benefits from increased economic activity and the provision of services in the region.
For example, Ranger mine at Jabiru has had up to 20% Indigenous employment, and other major operations such as McArthur River mine near Borroloola and GEMCO on Groote Eylandt have also made significant efforts to employ local people. This is in addition to other flow-on benefits from mines, such as the creation of indirect jobs, royalty payments and support for local activities. While I am talking about job opportunities for people in the mining sector I hark back to the experience with Groote Eylandt mine, where we now see third generation family members being employed in that mining operation. That is a perfect example of the long-term benefits mines such as that can bring to a region not just in employment opportunities, but the economic benefits that flow.
It makes sense for operators looking to develop new mines to work closely with local Indigenous communities for ways in which mutual outcomes can be achieved. We are now seeing this effect in the Roper Bar area, with new iron ore operations coming on stream.
Within the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries, Indigenous economic development also has a high priority. The Fisheries Division has a dedicated Indigenous development unit, employing eight staff to initiate development programs in response to community aspirations around aquaculture projects. After years of consultation and the expression of a strong desire by remote Aboriginal communities to be involved in the seafood industry, the Fisheries Division has undertaken a consultative process with traditional owners in East Arnhem Land, which has led to the establishment of the Garngirr Fishing Aboriginal Corporation. Garngirr intends to operate a fishing cooperative model across East Arnhem Land. Garngirr will coordinate and facilitate family based fishing businesses and assist with the sale and distribution of seafood product. Members of the board represent Elcho, the English Company Islands Milingimbi, Gove, Blue Mud Bay and Gapuwiyak.
Two scientific fishing permits have been issued to Indigenous Territorians at Gove and Elcho Island. These permits allow fishers to contribute to research on the sustainability of inshore fish stocks, and also allow the commercial sale of fish. The first shipments of fish from these projects have already gone on sale at the Darwin fish market – an outstanding result.
The department’s Fisheries Division has also employed an Indigenous commercial fishing mentor who has been working with Elcho and Gove, as well as other communities throughout Arnhem Land from Maningrida across to Ngukurr, with some 30 people being tutored in commercial fishing skills. The Fisheries Division also supports eight Indigenous marine ranger groups funded under a fee for service model, where these groups are paid to undertake fisheries research and compliance activities.
Since July 2013, Fisheries has undertaken on country training with rangers at Maningrida, Ramingining, Milingimbi, Blue Mud Bay, Groote Eylandt, Daly River and Wadeye. The water police unit and Charles Darwin University have also been involved in these training and compliance exercises.
Rangers at Warruwi and Groote Eylandt, in association with industry and government partners, are assisting with aquaculture projects on tropical rock oyster, giant clams and sea cucumbers that could provide long-term economic benefit to remote communities.
The Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries is also a partner in the multiagency Indigenous Pastoral Program that has been running since its pilot program commenced in 2003. Indigenous Pastoral Program partners include the Northern and Central Land Councils, the Indigenous Land Corporation, the former federal Department of Employment, Education and Workplace Relations and the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association.
The Indigenous Pastoral Program aims to increase pastoral production on Indigenous land, increase Indigenous participation in the pastoral industry and assist Indigenous organisations in their efforts to create viable cattle businesses on their land. Indigenous Pastoral Programs support 14 Indigenous properties towards developing their full potential as viable cattle operations, while managing the land in a sustainable manner and providing training to increase Indigenous employment.
Since 2003, some of the achievements under the Indigenous Pastoral Program include: an increase in cattle numbers on Indigenous lands of approximately 90 000 head; an additional area of about 2400 km2 of land fenced, watered and in pastoral production; 25 new grazing licences on Indigenous owned land covering 34 000 km2; in excess of $8m overall in infrastructure improvement and development; the creation of 64 new jobs, as well as a significant number of Indigenous people preparing to enter the pastoral industry workforce through formal and informal training; and improved land management in fire, weeds, feral animals, improved grazing land management and livestock husbandry. These are excellent results for the 10 years this program has been operating.
The Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries, with co-funding from the Indigenous Land Corporation, provides staff in Katherine, Alice Springs and Darwin who provide pastoral extension services to support enterprise development for established and emerging Indigenous pastoral properties.
Turning to my portfolio of Land Resource Management, the recent amendment of the non-pastoral use provisions under the Pastoral Land Act allows pastoralists greater opportunity to diversify their income streams and create potential employment opportunities in horticulture and agriculture industry in the regions. This, however, is reliant on non-pastoral business enterprises on pastoral properties being established.
Amendment of non-pastoral permits being issued for up to 30 years, as opposed to five years, and for permits to be registered against a lease and being transferrable upon sale of a property as opposed to being issued to a person, creates an economic development opportunity.
The department’s Bushfires NT also recognises the potential for traditional owners to generate and sell carbon credits on suitable land in the north of the Territory. The West Arnhem Fire Management Agreement project generates over 100 000 tonnes of carbon emission abatement and over $1.2m worth of revenue for traditional owners each year. Carbon emissions from wildfire are reduced through a program of early Dry Season fuel reduction burning and later Dry Season wildfire suppression. The revenue is directed entirely to land management activities, creating jobs in remote areas where employment opportunities are scarce.
The department’s crocodile management practices also provide substantial economic benefit to Indigenous landholders through sustainable harvest of both eggs and animals. In the Northern Territory, around 70% of crocodile habitat is on Indigenous land, and approximately 70% of egg harvest is also from Indigenous land. Indigenous landholders receive royalty payments of $22 per egg. In 2013 total egg harvest was over 47 000. Around 35 000 came from Indigenous land and provided an estimated royalty value of almost $780 000.
In 2012 there were around 200 crocodiles harvested from Indigenous land at approximately $200 per animal with royalty payments totalling almost $40 000. Both crocodile egg harvest and animal harvest provide real employment for locals in remote and regional areas.
Three Indigenous groups hold permits to harvest crocodile eggs: Thamarrurr Development Corporation at Wadeye; Gunbalanya – I might have trouble with this one and might not name the group of rangers at Gunbalanya; and Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation at Maningrida. The Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation also value adds to this process by incubating eggs and selling hatchlings.
Wildlife permits, the majority of which are issued to Indigenous groups, are also used to provide local Indigenous employment in remote areas as royalty payments are made when animals are collected for sale or breeding purposes. This includes a trial harvest and captive breeding of Oenpelli pythons, the sustainable harvest of a range of bush tucker species, the harvest and captive breeding of a range of commercial reptile species for the pet trade and the harvesting and sale of live magpie geese.
Within the department’s Water Resources Division a two-year Darwin Harbour Indigenous marine ranger program has commenced to train at least two Indigenous rangers in the technical skills required for the environmental monitoring of marine and coastal environments. This training program is with the Larrakia Nation Aboriginal Corporation and will enhance employment opportunities for the rangers as well as provide an opportunity for the corporation to expand its environmental monitoring of commercial operations with trained rangers.
Access to reliable high quality fresh water supplies is fundamental to drive economic development. In the regions, irrigated agriculture, horticulture or aquaculture projects provide economic development opportunities for Indigenous Territorians. The Department of Land Resource Management is working with Indigenous organisations such as Centrefarm to access water resources.
Turning to Essential Services, within the Power and Water Corporation, Indigenous Essential Services or IES, a not-for-profit subsidiary of the corporation, delivers reliable and equitable utility services in 72 remote Indigenous communities throughout the Northern Territory. Power and Water has contracts with various organisations for day-to-day work performed in remote communities which is undertaken by Essential Services Operators, or ESOs, hired by those organisations, including shires and private contractors.
The ESOs are an essential part of Power and Water’s extended contract workforce responsible for carrying out a range of regular tasks as part of the operation and maintenance of these essential services. They are the first to respond to unplanned power and water supply interruptions and emergencies. The Northern Territory has about 150 ESOs, almost 40% of whom are Indigenous. The ESO role in the community provides a unique and valuable job opportunity for local people. Through these contracts and a specific training program, Power and Water is able to build at local capacity, which is very important.
The longer term vision is for local Indigenous organisations to be established to use and build on these already available skills to tender for the ongoing ESO work. Power and Water releases open tenders for the ESO services and supports Indigenous economic development. Development of community capacity by developing infrastructure-related skills for local Indigenous people is the key step in this process.
Power and Water also has multiple contracts in place for the construction or maintenance of infrastructure, where possible, involving locally based organisations.
It is obvious this government is committed to providing and supporting economic development opportunities for Indigenous Territorians. We already have runs on the board in regard to creating and supporting jobs and businesses in regional and remote areas.
I strongly support the Chief Minister’s statement on Indigenous economic development in the Northern Territory. It is a principle upon which we rely as a conservative government, and whether you are talking about Indigenous economic development, economic development generally or at large across the Northern Territory, it is within the DNA of conservative governments, which is true of this Country Liberals government.
We recognise the importance of local people having – the people who live in regional and remote parts of the Northern Territory – access to real jobs, and although you could argue successfully real jobs are provided through the provision of government services on remote communities, much more can and should be done. We should not allow government funded jobs, whether they are Commonwealth, Northern Territory or local government, to be the only jobs available in local communities.
In order to build an economic base for the regions of the Northern Territory we need private enterprise to do what it does well – creating job opportunities. There are many barriers to this, but we are working as a government, diligently, with our heads down and our backsides up, trying to create an environment which is conducive to this type of private sector investment in regional parts of the Northern Territory.
Take, for example, the mining sector. By having a regulatory regime which is competitive against the other states and many other nations in the world, we create an environment where mining companies and exploration companies will come here to search for the next big discovery. Typically, the next big discovery will not be in rural Darwin or on the outskirts of Katherine, it will be remote. The Northern Territory is fundamentally underexplored and underdeveloped, especially in the minerals and oil and gas sectors. The opportunities existing through that sector alone are enormous for the economy of the Northern Territory, but also for what it represents in potential for Indigenous economic development.
Moving away from mining, let us look at what happened in Western Australia around the Ord. Western Australia has done a stellar job in developing its side of the Ord agricultural precinct. It has taken 40 or 50 years to get to where they are today, and I am delighted the Northern Territory government has seen fit to grant major project status to the work to be done in the Northern Territory to develop our side of the Ord agricultural area.
We have signed a memorandum of understanding with the Commonwealth and Western Australia so we all do our bit and pull together to develop the Northern Territory side. If we can emulate what happened in Western Australia, will that not be a good thing for the Territory? I am yet to describe the good things that have happened in Western Australia.
Spawned by the development of the Ord was the construction of roads, major irrigation channels and other infrastructure. The work being done to laser level the available land adjacent to the infrastructure has created a number of opportunities for small businesses to start, as you would expect. I hope it does not come as a surprise …
Mr HIGGINS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move that the member be granted an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Thank you, member for Daly for allowing me an extension of time.
It should come as no surprise that a number of small businesses which started in and around Kununurra are Indigenous, owned and operated by Indigenous people, Indigenous companies, employing Indigenous people. That is a prime example of the type of economic development that could and should be emulated in the Northern Territory. It can and should happen. Those opportunities should be afforded to Aboriginal people across the Northern Territory.
It is only from the provision of real jobs you will find capacity for any person – but in this context Indigenous people – to make their lot in life a little better, to give them opportunities to create and generate their own wealth. Most people do not get wealthy by working for the government, and that is no reflection on wages, EBA agreements or anything else; it is just a fact of life. That is fine if that is your lot and what you want to do. I applaud you for that, because your work for the Northern Territory or Commonwealth governments is vital …
Mr Higgins: Every job is important.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I pick up on the interjection from the member for Daly. Every job is important, but by living on a wage like that you do not get wealthy. The idea is to provide economic opportunities so people can become wealthy by building their own business. Indigenous people should have an opportunity to create or buy their own business. It makes sense so why should they not have that opportunity?
This government is working towards that. We have a plan for this to occur by working respectfully and carefully with the Northern Land Council, with traditional owners and even MG Corp in Western Australia. We are working on a plan to provide opportunities by getting the necessary approvals to open up places like the Ord on the Northern Territory side.
So therein lies, I suppose – again as an example – a fundamental of what this government is all about and what it stands for. It does not stand for just going with the flow, it is about creating opportunity. To create opportunity, particularly in difficult circumstances – I mentioned before the Ord being around for 40 or 50 years – one must wonder why it has never taken a big step forward until recent years. There are lots of theories about that and probably lots of good answers but, fundamentally, for these developments to happen it requires some political will, political drive and political courage.
Governments of the day need to show courage to pick up issues that are not just a fait accompli, but ones that are tough to deal with, require extended periods of sensitive negotiation and, frankly, sometimes bloody hard work. They should have the courage to take those challenges on and the political drive and will to continue with that work having made the decision, and we have made the decision. This government has decided to drive the Ord development in the Northern Territory.
We now need the will to continue the work to make it happen. Every now and then I hear a barb coming across from the Labor benches about the Ord and where it is at, why it is not happening, it is dead in the water and all those types of things …
Mr Higgins: Stop listening.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I pick up on the interjection from the member for Daly. I try to stop listening but that would be disrespectful to the members opposite. I listen to what they say, which is why I get a bit tetchy and sensitive about this because, in the 19 months this government has been in power, we have done more to progress the Ord than the former Labor government did over 11 years of stewardship in the Northern Territory. It is a little disingenuous, at best, that the Labor opposition should criticise us for where we are on the Ord, given the amount of work we have done and what we have achieved to date.
It is with pleasure that I support this statement today. I have delved into a couple of examples of what Indigenous economic development really means and how this government is proposing to drive growth in that sector. However, it is important to have specific examples so people can look at this and see the government is not all about rhetoric, it is doing something. I can guarantee you, members of this House and of the public, that this government is committed and driven to achieving economic development for Indigenous people across the Northern Territory.
It is an honour to be part of a government that is working so hard to this end, and I am delighted to be the minister responsible for two of the very critical portfolios that will underpin the economic growth of the Northern Territory for decades and generations to come. It is my sincere hope that Indigenous people across the Northern Territory come along for the ride.
When we talk about big projects in the Territory INPEX provides an enormous amount of stimulus for Darwin particularly, as well as other parts of the Top End. That is an example of one very large project providing economic development in the Northern Territory. However, the opportunities exist everywhere across the Territory.
Who is to say in five or 10 years’ time the entire Beetaloo Basin is not opened up for the development of gas and oil. Can you imagine what economic benefits that will have for the regions, not just because jobs will be created in the immediate vicinity of Beetaloo Basin – that area south of Katherine to the north of Daly Waters – but the other stimulus that provides: the additional transport required across the Territory to move much of the necessary infrastructure, the building of pipelines to transport the gas and the setting up of catering and laundry businesses around those types of major projects, which is critically important? Those opportunities exist on the periphery, are not often spoken about, but provide a huge bonus to the direct investment we see out of some of these big projects.
With that, it is a pleasure to support this very important statement on Indigenous economic development in the Northern Territory. I am delighted I had the opportunity to let the people of the Territory know what I think about this topic.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for bringing his statement on Indigenous economic development before the House during the February sittings. I have listened with great interest to the contributions of a number of members of this House. There are a number of areas of common interest, a number of areas we agree on about the importance of Indigenous economic development, particularly what it means for people in the bush and, for those of us who represent people in the bush, we obviously have an intense interest in this area.
I agree that all Territorians want a prosperous local economy. All Australians would want that as well, and we want jobs and to create financial wealth. One of the distinctions I make here is between the creation of financial wealth and the accumulation of financial wealth.
Many people recognise an income brings them choice because they have financial independence and can purchase the things they need for themselves and their families. It is through economic independence, as the Chief Minister says, that people will be in charge of their own lives and less reliant on government. It is what everybody should aspire to.
The former Labor government worked hard to help people realise and aspire to economic independence. It is very challenging, as I know members on both side of this House would agree.
I applaud the Chief Minister’s comment on page two about wanting to increase the capability and capacity of Indigenous Territorians and businesses. We all agree with that and the objectives. I am not sure I agree with all his objectives, such as a prosperous Territory economy must include the potential of our regions and encourage private investment and the need to support local capacity building. However, on the issue of encouraging private investment, at the heart of my own electorate – the major population centre of Nhulunbuy – we have been in a state of limbo for four months with the major employer, Rio Tinto, announcing its decision on 29 November to curtail its operations and shed more than 1000 jobs. That will see the population drop from 4000 to anything from 1200 – if we are lucky – to 1800.
Nhulunbuy has all the infrastructure one would hope for. It will have a lot of empty houses, it has roads, shops – probably a few more empty shops along the way – a functional deep water port, power, water and a good airport that will probably see a reduction in the number of flights.
We have all that in Nhulunbuy as an important regional centre but, to date, no success in attracting any private investor or private company. We cannot even attract a government department. What hope do we have for our remote Indigenous communities to attract private investment into those places if we cannot attract private investment or convince government to invest there as well?
I put that on the table because it jumped out at me as I was preparing to speak today – the need to attract private investment. We cannot do it in the township of Nhulunbuy. In fact, we are losing businesses and, as we heard today from the Minister for Health, we will lose further businesses – what would have been a significant construction project of $13m for a long overdue upgrade of the emergency department at Gove District Hospital. Gove hospital caters not just for Nhulunbuy but the entire region – an Indigenous population of some 15 000 Yolngu people. Apparently, that project will not proceed because there will be a dwindling of the population. Apparently, half the people who present to the ED department at Gove hospital are non-Indigenous and there is anticipation many non-Indigenous people will be leaving and they cannot justify the expenditure. How does that work? Does that mean the remaining population of Nhulunbuy does not deserve contemporary, state-of-the-art medical facilities to provide medical treatment and save lives?
Somehow, on the economies of scale for the CLP government, the investment of $13m is not worth it. This is on top of $5.3m the former Health minister, the Treasurer, handed back to the federal government saying, ‘Thank you, we do not need a medi-hotel. They are only for long-grassers and there is a pub in town. If people need somewhere to stay, that is where they can go.’
It beggars belief that on one hand we are talking about the need to build capacity and grow our regional economies, then on the other hand we have what is live and happening in Nhulunbuy, including the announcement today of a reappraisal of $13m already committed to Gove District Hospital. I find this staggering.
We need quality services in Nhulunbuy to improve peoples’ lives and this includes health services. I note the statement about ‘real jobs’; this was the language of the former Labor government as well. We invested heavily in real jobs in regional and remote areas of the Northern Territory, targeting Indigenous people getting into real jobs stimulated by the injection of a significant sum of money into jobs in local government when Malarndirri McCarthy was the Local Government minister and member for Arnhem.
Fast-forward to where we are now with real jobs in remote communities. What is happening in housing with the maintenance contracts – the Housing minister has a different view of the world, but does not spend enough time out bush talking to real people to hear what is happening. We are talking about the three tranches of five-year contracts. There is nothing wrong with five-year contracts; they present a wonderful opportunity to create employment in the regional councils – shires, regional councils, same thing, it is a rebadge – and build and sustain jobs. Over a five-year period, there is an opportunity to do something significant around local jobs for local people.
We have the housing maintenance coordination service, which is a locally-based handyman service encouraging local employment. The second one is the tenancy management service, which is about locally-based community housing officers providing tenancy support and advice. The third is the panel contract for trade qualified services. Those first two contracts are big employers of local people and the third one, for trade qualified services, has the potential to move away from a fly-in fly-out arrangement to develop jobs and skills in the communities for local people through traineeships and apprenticeships.
Unfortunately, the five-year contracts across the three tranches through Housing are not delivering what was intended. They were supposed to roll-out on 1 December 2013. In a number of areas they have been pushed back to the beginning of June. I can speak on behalf of my own constituency with the East Arnhem Regional Council, which is covering contracts in these areas month-to-month, unsuccessful in its bid for the cluster looking after Yirrkala, Gapuwiyak and Gunyangara, also known as Ski Beach. We have people employed in regional councils getting a phone call every few months to say, ‘Sorry, I can guarantee your job for another month or so, but we didn’t win the contract and don’t know who has’.
That does nothing to build local employment and confidence for people in jobs with the East Arnhem shire council. There are currently 13 jobs on hold, 11 of which are held by Yolngu people.
On Groote Eylandt the East Arnhem shire council has been asked to continue with these contracts even though it was not allowed to tender for the Groote contract, presumably because they are planning to transition Groote to a stand-alone regional council. They have been very open about that on the floor of the House, and the community has expressed a desire to move down that path. That will be very interesting in itself, once we witness what is unfolding and progressing with the breakup of the Vic Daly Shire. I understand things are not going exactly swimmingly there.
Let us be honest about creating and supporting real jobs in communities. I know from people who have contacted me that where contracts have been awarded in places like the West Arnhem Shire, they are disappointed local regional council employees will not necessarily hold onto those jobs and the contractors who have won the jobs are saying, ‘Can you help us out with housing? Can you assist us with workshop space, capital lay down areas?’ Those types of things, in lack of planning, are just staggering. For contracts that were intended to deliver sustainable employment and build capacity it appears, in a number of areas, to be having the opposite effect.
Real jobs in education have been axed. These were important roles for Indigenous people in classrooms such as teacher aides, support workers, often as translators and cultural brokers between the non-Indigenous teacher and a classroom full of kids. Thanks to the Education minister, the CLP government and the cuts thrust upon education, many of those people are out of jobs. I attended a graduation ceremony at Yirrkala last year where more than a dozen people – predominantly women – had graduated from Batchelor College in both Level 1 and Level 2 Education Support. They do not all have jobs this year because of funding cuts.
This goes to the heart of what the member for Barkly was saying. It is the importance of recognising the core role education has to play in all our lives. Madam Speaker, you would not be here today, I would not be here, members opposite would not be here and staff in the Table Office would not be here if we did not have a decent education which got us to the end of our secondary schooling and gave us choices and options about the type of work we wanted to do.
We certainly understand the difficulties of delivering education in the bush. When we came into government in 2001 we had a void to fill as there was no secondary Indigenous education delivered in regional and remote areas. There was not a single Year 12 Aboriginal graduate from a remote area. In the 11 years or so Labor was in government we endeavoured to turn that around and saw children graduating from Year 12. Did we see hundreds of them? No, but we certainly saw many more than under the CLP government. Twenty-six years of the CLP government with no secondary education in the bush meant there was a huge catch-up to get on top of.
I appreciate an Indigenous education review is under way, but am a little alarmed – and not alone – about one of the recommendations. It is a draft report although, as the Chief Minister is announcing boarding facilities in Nhulunbuy, I assume the draft recommendations have become policy for the Northern Territory government, particularly the view on boarding schools. The recommendation was senior schooling not be provided in remote schools, and those students be located in boarding facilities in larger centres with mainstream schools and participate there.
I am sure the world view of Noel Pearson – I have a great deal of time for some of the views and people listen to him. His view, through the Cape York Institute and for students in far north Queensland, is they must leave their communities and travel to mainstream centres to complete their schooling.
Many people disagree with that view, particularly in Arnhem Land. Some families are incredibly protective of their children and their culture, and want to have a say in their child’s education and see their child educated on country. If this move to boarding facilities progresses, I am flagging the Chief Minister be prepared for some real consultation and a genuine commitment to convince Indigenous families this is the best thing. What it does, sadly, is remove choice.
I know a number of families in my electorate who choose to send their children to boarding school, and good on them. I see those kids go away and come back with great success. However, the boarding facility recommendation from the Indigenous education review does not provide that choice. It tells families, ‘If you want your child to receive a senior secondary education they have to relocate’. I can see it will be fraught for a number of communities.
When we talk about real jobs, I guess all other members receive the same publications I do. When I pop into my parliamentary office sometimes there is mail. The publication from NAILSMA, the North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance, is called Kantri Laif. You have only to flick through the pages to read all about Indigenous employment and training opportunities and, with it, many success stories. Obviously these stories are focused on Indigenous people on land and sea country, the intrinsic connection to land and sea country. At the core and heart of Indigenous culture is a massive source of employment for people around traditional Indigenous knowledge and culture.
As I am sure the Minister for Parks and Wildlife would appreciate, a brilliant employer of people is ranger programs. The member for Katherine spoke about the fabulous ranger programs which are big employers of Indigenous people, but also in strengthening and maintaining culture, developing knowledge, and teaching non-Indigenous western culture about traditional culture.
In this publication – there is no page number but it is page 28 – there is a double-page spread about the Yirralka Miyalk Rangers. Miyalk is women. These are women from the Laynhapuy Homelands who do amazing work. The article is – I have a show and tell for you, it is the ex-schoolteacher in me – about the Yirralka Rangers producing a number of bush products. It is a shame the day the member for Namatjira and the Chief Minister visited the homeland of GanGan to announce their homelands policy they did not have time to stop because they were busy making handmade soaps. Obviously they purchase products to gel them together, but there are medicinal products in them collected from the bush with some fantastic healing properties. These products are an enormous source of pride to the people who produce them. A little jar of – my Yolngu Matha is terrible so I will not attempt to say the word – a bush body scrub. This generates employment and income at the Nhulunbuy markets held once a month …
Mr CHANDLER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move that the member be granted an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Ms WALKER: Thank you very much, member for Brennan. As members know, I love my baskets and have a considerable collection of bathi produced by fibre artists and entirely hand made from the pandanus collected on country. They are works of art and sell with a considerable price tag on them, but it does not reflect the hours that have gone into them.
I remember when talking about baskets in the last Assembly I was lambasted by the now Chief Minister who said – and the member for Fong Lim as well wanted to know – ‘Baskets, baskets, what is the member for Nhulunbuy talking about baskets for?’ I am talking about baskets because, while it is wonderful to have the ‘think big’ big end of town businesses, let us not lose sight of those businesses, those skills and those little economies in our communities which generate wealth for the people who live there. At the same time, people retain their culture and pass on to their community important skills and knowledge that are very much at the core of their lives.
The cost of living and the cost of doing business out bush and in regional and remote communities is phenomenal. We know – it is fact; I am not making it up or being mischievous – the cost of living has gone up in the last 18 months under the CLP government. It is entirely contrary to its commitment to drive down the cost of living; the cost of living has gone up. Power prices are up by 25% with more to come, water prices are up, and I do not think people, unless they are out bush and talking to people who live there, realise the impact of the increase in power tariffs. It is a significant and negative impact on people’s lives. When that power card has run out after two or three days as opposed to the five or six days it used to last, and there is no more money in the household until pay day comes around there is no electricity in the house, it is that simple. There are no fans, no washing machine, no fridge and, with that, no food security. I cannot emphasise how important the cost of living is and the negative impact it is currently having on people. Of course, that translates to business. If families cannot make it work, it will be difficult for businesses to make it work.
In regard to the cost of living and food security, I attended the Menzies School of Health breakfast last Thursday morning for the annual Closing the Gap recognition. There were a number of excellent speakers from Menzies School of Health, and a dietician – forgive me, I cannot remember her name – gave a presentation about one of the programs Menzies runs called ‘Shop at RIC’. I thought, ‘Shop at RIC, what does that mean?’ Shop at RIC stands for ‘shop at remote Indigenous community’. It is a program trying to promote healthy living in our communities, and urban areas for that matter, for Indigenous people to understand the importance of good nutrition, value for money and the impact upon health if people do not enjoy a balanced diet.
One of the barriers to a good and balanced diet is the cost of food. During this presentation she highlighted the difference between purchasing a basket of groceries for a family of six which would last for a two-week period. The price in a Darwin urban setting for that basket of groceries was $534. That same basket of groceries in a regional remote area costs $760 – more than $200 for the same basket of groceries in a remote store purchased by people not making good money. That means at the same time as trying to pay their power bills and keep the lights, fans and fridge on, that difference in cost of living is phenomenal. It is why people go hungry and children may struggle to get to school, because there is no food at home. It might account for why people and kids turn to sniffing volatile substances, because the high from sniffing takes the edge off their hunger. Those cost of living figures were staggering and are something we all need to be cognisant of.
Before I close I want to talk about the importance of investing in infrastructure. I mentioned how disappointing it is that $13m allocated to Gove District Hospital to upgrade the ED department – what this will mean. Does it mean a project which would have employed people and, ultimately, delivered much improved health services to the region will not happen? In Question Time today the Infrastructure minister was asked about barge landings, and we could talk about roads as well.
Unless we have the infrastructure in place to drive and enhance the economic opportunities for these communities, they will struggle to deliver. There is no decent barge landing at Gapuwiyak; it is a muddy bank. There is no hard stand area, there are no lights so if a barge comes in – as it has to at Gapuwiyak on the tide, up a river – the barge has to be unloaded overnight because there is no security to drop off containers and leave them until the next day when the ALPA store comes out.
Investment in roads is a huge demand for government. I am proud of the government I was part of, with funding coming predominantly from Canberra for significant upgrades to the Central Arnhem Road. Those upgrades are nearing completion, and the last upgrade to go is the crossing at Donydji Creek.
What the Chief Minister has gone quiet on, regarding the Central Arnhem Road, is the bid for $440m to seal it. Knowing the competitive process to upgrade the roads network in the Northern Territory, where only 23% of the roads are sealed, how will the Chief Minister go with this? He pops out to Nhulunbuy with big picture ideas about how Nhulunbuy will be saved and says, ‘I hear what the regional economic development committee is telling me and yes, there needs to be $440m for the Central Arnhem Road’.
There is no sign of this whatsoever, and no sign of the development of the buffalo export industry for the northeast Arnhem Land region. The first export has gone to Vietnam, fantastic news, but I have heard nothing further about how the business is progressing in northeast Arnhem Land. Tourism is another potential for Nhulunbuy, as it is for many regions around the Northern Territory. In Nhulunbuy, to try to bolster the regional economy in the downturn we are currently in, we were offered by the Tourism minister – any money is gratefully received – $10 000.
He offered a $10 000 grant to boost tourism in the northeast Arnhem Land region. Yesterday, $25 000 was announced for a bike race in Alice Springs. They do not quite weigh up; they do not stack up and we will be looking closely at what is being offered for the Nhulunbuy region.
In the coming weeks we will also be looking closely – in the lead-up to budget hand down – at what investment there will be into the bush. I am not sure if this statement is about to be wound up or adjourned, but if it is adjourned I hope we hear from the three renegade bush members from the other side. They have had an awful lot to say about what they are unhappy with. Right here, right now in this ministerial statement would be the perfect opportunity to have their say and put their views on the record.
I acknowledge we have no minister responsible for Indigenous policy or advancement in the Northern Territory, completely in contrast to Tony Abbott who, as Prime Minister, has Indigenous Affairs in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. It does not quite weigh up with the Territory. Mind you, it probably speaks volumes about the chasm we have between the CLP Chief Minister and Prime Minister Abbott.
I thank the Chief Minister for his statement, even though he was unable to deliver it himself, and look forward to him delivering on the many promises.
Debate adjourned.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, today I provide the Assembly with details of a missed strategic opportunity regarding the Amadeus gas pipeline and, in particular, the failure of the former Territory Labor government to secure a vital piece of infrastructure for a bargain price.
From the outset I make the point this is in no way an attack on the APA Group. The APA Group is a good corporate citizen of the Northern Territory, and has been for many years. As a company, they have a fiduciary obligation to act in the best interest of the company and maximise shareholder returns. It is the same fiduciary obligation that was so lacking by the previous Labor government.
Yesterday, I informed this House about the former Labor government’s scandalous fiduciary neglect with the Territory government’s asset management system, which has resulted in a waste of $70m. This missed strategic opportunity regarding the Amadeus pipeline is another tale of recklessness and ineptitude by the former Labor Treasurer and now Leader of the Opposition, Delia Lawrie, which sees an essential piece of infrastructure effectively privatised after it has been underwritten by the Northern Territory taxpayer. Compare this to today, where we have the Leader of the Opposition saying electricity, water and sewerage services are all essential services that should remain under government ownership, yet on the other hand she presided over the privatisation of a key part of the value chain, in this case, the Amadeus pipeline.
At the termination of the long-term leverage lease agreement on 16 June 2011, the former Territory Labor government had an ability to force an open sale in order to buy the Amadeus gas pipeline on behalf of Territorians. Instead, it supported the continued privatised operation of the Amadeus gas pipeline and allowed the APA group to buy the pipeline for $57.8m.
While that sounds like a lot of money – and it is – we will go on to learn this price reflected merely three years’ worth of lease payments the former government was paying to use the asset. In the context of a household, if you are renting a house and you can buy it for three years’ worth of rent, do you say no?
That is effectively what the Labor government did when it chose to support the continuation of private ownership of the pipeline rather than purchase it for the benefit of Territorians. To add insult to injury, instead of seeing the merits of owning this vital piece of infrastructure the former Labor Treasurer, Delia Lawrie, signed Territorians up to a costly and open-ended, long-term bilateral agreement to continue to use the pipeline to transport gas.
So instead of buying the house for three years’ rent, Labor decided it was best to enter into an expensive and costly long-term gas transportation agreement, but it gets worse. The Labor government even managed to sign itself to funding the pipeline’s remedial works so called ‘special project’ costs. Back to our house example: Labor rejected the chance to buy it for the equivalent of three years’ rent. Instead, it entered into an expensive, open-ended, long-term lease arrangement and agreed to refurbish it.
What a deal! Between the expensive open-ended long-term gas transportation arrangements and the agreement to carry out remedial works, the Territory has been signed up by Labor for $95m in today’s dollars which we should not be paying for over the life of the contract.
In short, Territorians are paying more than what it would have cost the Territory to buy and operate the pipeline. This additional cost Labor signed up for can only be funded by one of two ways: the raising of additional government debt, or passing on the cost to Territorians through electricity tariffs. I wonder which one they chose to do. I suspect it was the easy option. They racked up more debt, but let us take a step back. What is this pipeline, and why would the government even want to own it?
The Amadeus gas pipeline, the AGP, is one of the most important pieces of infrastructure in the Northern Territory. It is the essential pipe through which gas is transported to Power and Water’s power stations which provide power supply to Territorians in Darwin, Katherine, Tennant Creek, Borroloola and Alice Springs. It is vital in keeping the lights on and the Territory supplied with electricity.
The pipeline was constructed in 1985 and 1986, and started operating in late 1986. It was constructed as part of the implementation of a decision by the then Country Liberal government to use the Territory’s domestic gas for the purpose of public electricity supply. In 1984, the Country Liberal government had decided to construct a new coal-fired power station at Channel Island to service the electricity requirements of the Darwin area. The Territory had no coal reserves available, so coal would need to be shipped from interstate in order to fuel power generation.
Following representations from petroleum leaseholders of the then undeveloped Amadeus Basin gas fields (Palm Valley and Mereenie), the Territory government investigated the feasibility of developing the Amadeus Basin gas fields as the primary fuel for the Territory’s electricity needs. This proposal had the added benefit of enabling the supply of gas-generated electricity to the Territory’s regional centres, such as Tennant Creek and Katherine, along the pipeline route.
The gas project comprised three separate parts:
gas fields – the development of the Amadeus Basin gas field
the pipeline – the construction and financing of the pipeline to transport the gas to where it was needed
electricity generation facilities – the construction of the gas-fired electricity generation plants at Channel Island, Katherine and Tennant Creek.
In late 1984, the Territory government considered the relative merits of the coal and gas projects and the possible structures of any gas project. At the same time, the Amadeus Basin producers undertook further reserves investigations. It is abundantly clear the Country Liberals government decided to proceed with the gas project over the coal project, and the implementation of that decision was a prudent decision at the time.
While going with gas might be an obvious decision in this day and age based on environmental considerations, based upon the facts available at that time it was seen to be in the public interest for a number of other reasons. It developed the Territory’s domestic gas reserves, an important decision in itself and one that still accrues benefits today. The Northern Territory gas market was created, meaning other industries could use gas as an energy source. It led to greater competition in the Territory energy market and created royalties and substantial tax receipts for the Territory and Commonwealth governments. Possibly most importantly, development of the Territory’s gas reserves reduced the cost of electricity to Territorians and created new jobs, not least of which by allowing mines such as Woodcutters and McArthur River to go ahead.
The previous Country Liberal government was not afraid to engage the private sector to develop a competitive energy market which, ultimately, led to further investment and economic opportunities. However, without the long-term agreement between NT Gas, the then Power and Water Authority (PAWA) and the Territory government’s support, development of the pipeline would not have occurred. The Amadeus gas pipeline was financed via a tax-effective leverage lease and unit trust structure, the Amadeus Gas Trust, whereby a third party, NT Gas Pty Ltd, constructed the pipeline and sold it to the financiers – Australia’s four major trading banks – who then leased it back to NT Gas.
Power and Water and its predecessors met the cost of the lease payments NT Gas was directly obliged to pay, as well as paying NT Gas a ‘tariff’ for operating and maintaining the Amadeus gas pipeline known as the ‘operating tariff’. A further payment was made to the Amadeus Gas Trust for gas that Power and Water shipped in the Amadeus Gas Trust over and above the volume set out in the foundation gas contracts between its subsidiary company, Gasgo Pty Ltd and the Amadeus Basin gas producers, Santos and Magellan Petroleum. This was known as the ‘transportation levy’.
By 2010-11, the aggregate cost paid by PWC to transport gas through the pipeline was circa $45m. This is made up of lease payments worth $18m, an operating tariff of $13m and a transportation levy of $14m. At the termination of the leverage lease agreement on 16 June 2011, the Labor government and then Treasurer could have bought the Amadeus gas pipeline on behalf of Territorians for around $57.8m, rather than supporting its continued private ownership.
The former Labor government chose not to acquire the pipeline on behalf of Territorians. This was an expensive mistake by the former Labor government, especially in view of the fact the Northern Territory government had guaranteed the Amadeus gas pipeline in the first place, but maybe the former government thought the purchase price was too high; maybe the asset was not worth $57.8m. After all, there is not a particularly deep market for gas pipelines. They do not come on to the market all that often. However, the government need only consider the current estimated value of its investment in the McArthur River gas pipeline.
The estimated value of the NT government’s 50% portion of the McArthur River pipeline is $40m for just 300 km of pipe with a capacity of three petajoules per annum. When we compare this to the Amadeus gas pipeline, which is 1640 km in length and has a capacity of approximately 30 petajoules per annum, 10 times more than the McArthur River pipeline, an additional $20m is quite a modest sum for Territorians to own the Amadeus gas pipeline. Instead PWC, under the direction of the Territory Labor government and then Territory Labor government Treasurer, Delia Lawrie, entered into a costly 25-year bilateral agreement with the APA Group.
The gas transportation agreement initially committed PWC to make minimum annual payments of $18m in 2011-12, together with a number of ongoing obligations to fund remedial work on the AGP which NT Gas failed to perform during its 25-year term as operator of the AGP. Power and Water had advice regarding the terms and conditions sought by APA via the gas transportation agreement at that time that:
the operating charge sought by APA was excessive
APA’s request to have PWC also fund the AGP special projects, i.e. the remedial works, had no contractual basis and was exceedingly risky for PWC, with potential for major cost overruns, therefore should be rejected, and
For all the statements the Labor Leader of the Opposition has made in relation to network reliability in recent days, she seems blissfully unaware and negligent as to the state of the 11 km Darwin City Gate to Channel Island pipe which supplies gas into the generators.
Currently under this bilateral agreement, the annual cost to PWC and Territorians to transport gas via the Amadeus gas pipeline is now in excess of $20m per year. The cost of the remedial special projects, which an independent expert advised should cost in the order of $12m, is now likely to cost more than three times this amount, or about $35m. Does this sound familiar? This is the same situation which prevailed with the Labor leader’s botched asset management system, which blew out from $7.2m to $70m, or for that matter PWC’s asset management system. This was supposed to cost Territory taxpayers $11m and ended up costing more than $60m.
Power and Water’s assessment of a competitive lease payment was $14m per annum based upon historical operational charges and the amortisation of the residual value of the pipeline rather than the initial $18m under the gas transportation agreement, which to date has increased to more than $20m with the amortisation of the ongoing remedial works, which are ultimately included in the lease payments.
As a result, Territorians are paying in excess of $6m more each year because of the former Labor government’s incompetence. Over the contract period this equates to $95m in today’s dollars. In effect, Territorians are paying more than what it would have cost the Territory to buy and operate the pipeline. It is important to appreciate Power and Water’s original assessment excluded the cost for special projects for which there was no pre-existing contractual liability and they were eventually accepted by the Territory Labor government.
This additional cost must be funded by either of two ways: the raising of additional government debt or passing on the cost to Territorians through higher electricity tariffs. Not surprisingly, the Leader of the Opposition has forgotten it was her Territory Labor government which corporatised Power and Water in 2002 with the introduction of the Government Owned Corporations Act. The former Labor government committed PWC to meeting the following conditions under the Government Owned Corporations Act:
However, Labor’s reckless decision not to purchase the Amadeus gas pipeline and, instead, throw away taxpayers’ money by entering into an open-ended agreement is inconsistent with the GOC act requirement to:
It is no wonder the Opposition Leader and former Treasurer has so often chosen to ignore Page 14 of Budget Paper 2, which shows Power and Water’s financial performance was projected to remain well below commercial levels over the period to 2015-16 under no policy change conditions. The former Labor government’s actual return on assets for Territorians was below zero in 2010-11, whereas the target weighted average cost of capital is in excess of 6%. In short, the former Labor government was not even close to economic break even. While the Opposition Leader questions the rationale for commercial or economic returns, Power and Water’s financial performance has been lacklustre and not of the level expected from a blue chip investment.
Over the last 10 financial years, Power and Water has not delivered an accounting profit after excluding taxpayer funded subsidies with the exception of the 2008-09 financial year. The subsidies include the uniform tariff CSO which applies to urban residential customers, the pensioner concessions which apply to the elderly and the subsidies to Indigenous Essential Services and are currently in excess of $150m.
In reality, the taxpayer funded subsidies dwarf any profit before tax in all years between 2003-04 and 2011-12, with the exception, as I said, of 2008-2009.
Given this financial performance, it is no wonder the level of PWC’s debt increased from $290m in 2003-04 to $1.2bn in 2011-12. I will repeat that: given the financial performance, it is no wonder the levels of PWC’s debt increased from $290m in 2003-04 to $1.2bn in 2011-12.
This is an increase of $900m in just eight years or a debt accumulation of $113m per year, and this does not take into account the $150m in other subsidies. In context, this bad decision on the Amadeus gas pipeline by the Labor Opposition Leader and her colleagues is almost equivalent to one year’s average debt burden borne by the Power and Water Corporation in the period from 2003-04 to 2011-12.
Sadly for Territorians, making costly mistakes was a common event for the Labor Opposition Leader and former Treasurer. Moody’s rating agency recognised the need to rectify the financial performance of the Power and Water Corporation and that it was, until recently, surviving only with government support. The Leader of the Opposition is in denial about the dismal state of the corporation, and for that matter the state of the finances inherited by the Giles government.
Madam Speaker, I move the statement be noted.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, Territorians should be very concerned with this Treasurer of the Territory when he leads with his chin and errs in fact in this statement. I have seen some pretty bad statements in my time in this Chamber, but this has hit an all-time low.
As of last night, the government was not able to inform the opposition, as is normal convention, whether or not there would be a statement in the Chamber today. I note the Treasurer cannot stand being here and listening because he would want to run away from the truth.
Madam SPEAKER: Opposition Leader, withdraw that comment.
Ms LAWRIE: I withdraw. I have no doubt the Treasurer would not want to hear the truth in response, because, clearly, he has led with his chin. It is little wonder that as of last night, we were not informed of any statement before the House, and it dropped at about 8 am in e-mails from the government. At 4.30 pm or thereabouts – probably close to 4.45 pm – an amended statement was dropped from the Treasurer.
I did not have the opportunity to read the amended statement and highlight the differences between it and the statement dropped this morning. There is no convention in this House for amended statements to come forth in such a manner without warning, without any clear indication as to why the statement has been amended, but we will do the compare and contrast and highlight amendments in the appropriate sections.
I would rather listen to the experts on this subject than the fool who parades as Treasurer for the government. I say he is a fool because he said this was a Labor deal on the gas pipeline. No, Treasurer, the deal was struck by the CLP.
I am advised it was negotiated when Ian Tuxworth was CLP Treasurer. Negotiations commenced in about 1984 and continued through 1985. The incoming CLP Treasurer, Marshall Perron, then signed off on the Amadeus gas pipeline agreement in 1986.
The agreement included a contingent liability of some $57.8m, which would be sitting there at the end of the lease period and the NT Gas company was the entity which would determine the sale. NT Gas has a relationship to APA which, ultimately, bought the pipeline. NT Gas is a 96% almost fully-owned subsidiary of APA, but I will get to that a bit later.
The Treasurer then asserted Labor did the deal. Clearly, Labor did not do the deal. The Treasurer takes a scant look at the history of why the gas pipeline was created in the first place, and that was for good reason. It was created to provide gas as an energy source for the then new Channel Island Power Station rather than burn coal. Previous CLP governments made that decision in the mid-1980s, and that decision has stood the Territory in quite good stead. We have a cleaner type of energy source for Channel Island than we would have otherwise had. However, they needed to transport the gas from the Central Australian fields to Channel Island, hence the need for the Amadeus gas pipeline.
Back in its day, the project did not attract the endearing view of the private sector. Therefore, the CLP government decided, in the mid-1980s, to underwrite the project thus creating the contingent liability of $57.8m. Essentially, the arrangements were thus: 60% of the lease of the pipeline would occur throughout the life of the lease in payments from the user – Power and Water obviously – to the company, and the remaining 40%, which is the contingent liability which became due in 2011 because there was an extension to those lease arrangements – but I will touch on that in a second – was $57.8m.
I am reliably advised that in signing off the original deal, the then Treasurer, Marshall Perron, also signed a letter. Interestingly enough, this letter is not mentioned by the Treasurer, who is leading with his chin today. The letter signed by former Treasurer, Marshall Perron, said the NT government would not bid against NT Gas, and that was a binding commitment. That was a significant reason why the NT government did not put in a bid in 2011, when I was Treasurer. That letter existed, and quite aside from that, why on earth would any government want to go into the business of an energy infrastructure supplier when an energy infrastructure player of national repute, APA, wanted to purchase the pipeline? It was purchased in the end, I believe, for about $63m.
However, in this strange socialist view the Treasurer has we should have coughed up $63m or gone into a bidding war with the energy infrastructure supplier, APA, that could have, ultimately, invoked the binding commitment Marshall Perron provided to NT Gas and said to their 96% subsidiary, ‘You buy it because these guys are clowns’. We were not clowns and we did the right thing in 2011. Do not worry, that does not suit the bizarre and strange musings of the Treasurer in his statement today.
Fact: it was a CLP deal from the 1980s. Then, in the late 1990s, the deal was renegotiated by former Treasurer, Barry Coulter. We inherited the renegotiated deal. When I say ‘we’, I mean the Labor government. The renegotiated deal, as it should have, included modelling done by merchant bankers Fay Richwhite on whether or not this gas pipeline deal, with its lease requirements and tariffs on lease, was a good deal for the Northern Territory and, therefore, the taxpayer.
In the late 1990s when the modelling was done by the merchant bankers on whether or not it was a good deal, it identified savings of at least $120m over the life of the financing. I am advised by people involved in this project for decades that their considered view was the amount was far greater, but they would admit to $120m in savings in their advice to the Commonwealth.
By any stretch, when the former Treasurer – not Labor – renegotiated the deal Labor inherited it was a good deal: $120m in savings is no small bikkies. The Treasurer likes to make much of the fact we did not take up the option to buy. He ignores former CLP Treasurer, Marshall Perron’s letter with a binding commitment to NT Gas that the government would not bid against them. Indeed, the parent company picked that commitment up – APA – and purchased the pipeline. Why would any government go into a bidding war it would ultimately lose, giving additional revenue to four large banks rather than the opportunity for investment in the Territory? It seems extraordinary and lacking in logic altogether, but that is what we are used to from this Treasurer.
I go to the attempt by the Treasurer to criticise my time as former Treasurer and his attempt to verbal a very fine Australian company in APA. APA is a major ASX-listed gas transportation business with interests in energy infrastructure across mainland Australia. Its assets include more than 14 000 km of natural gas pipelines, gas storage facilities and a wind farm. APA is Australia’s largest transporter of natural gas, delivering approximately half of Australia’s annual gas through its infrastructure. However, no company is safe from this Treasurer when he wants to score cheap political points. It is the Treasurer’s contention that in June 2011, when the original lease for the Amadeus gas pipeline was finished, Labor, in government, should have entered the gas pipeline business. Forget about the need for investment in hospitals, schools and police stations, the Treasurer believes we should have entered into the gas pipeline business. It is a ludicrous suggestion.
The Treasurer should welcome and acknowledge the fact that Australia’s pre-eminent gas transportation company now owns the Amadeus gas pipeline which, as I said, was purchased for $63m not $57.8m.
Let us look at some of the other misleading assertions in the Treasurer’s statement. He refers to the arrangement with APA as an ‘open-ended agreement’. It is not. APA has a 25-year lease with Power and Water Corporation. At the end of that time Power and Water can exercise an option for another 25 years, and why would they not if APA is fulfilling its obligations? He criticises the tariff being paid. Treasurer, the tariff is not set by APA; it is set by the Australian Energy Regulator. The Australian Energy Regulator sets a maximum tariff but, because APA are good corporate citizens, they are charging less. Yes, that is right: their annual rate of return is lower than the rate set by the Australian Energy Regulator.
The Treasurer tried to suggest the Amadeus pipeline would have been a good buy because it is 1640 km compared to the Territory’s 330 km section of the McArthur River pipeline. This, he said, would have been a bargain for only $20m more. Treasurer, pipelines are not valued on the basis of their length – never have been, never will be. Pipelines are valued on the revenue they can generate. You really need to stop writing your own statements because this one is littered with mistruths and you need to get your facts straight.
What was this statement today really about? This is a pathetic attempt to soften the community to justify the government’s plans to split up and privatise Power and Water Corporation. The Treasurer has been raking through old Cabinet submissions and decisions trying to dig up anything to justify the sale of Power and Water Corporation assets. However, Territorians will not be deceived, particularly given the long history of shonky deals and jobs for the boys by successive CLP governments. Is this the standard the Treasurer wants to embrace?
This is an attempted distraction from infighting and turmoil in the CLP and the Chief Minister’s lack of leadership – looking backwards not forward – to address the many challenges confronting the Territory. The CLP has a very poor record on gas. The botched negotiations and reneged deals on gas were central to the demise of the Gove refinery. Terry Mills got it right, Adam Giles botched it. The former Chief Minister was chopped down when negotiating on gas in Japan.
The Treasurer, a purported champion of the private sector, advocates that government should be in the business of owning and operating gas pipelines.
This ministerial statement raises the Treasurer’s preoccupation with the uniform tariff community service obligation which applies to pensioner concessions and subsidies to Indigenous Essential Services.
The community, and the bush members of parliament opposite, should and will be alarmed. Community service obligations are clearly under threat under this Treasurer, driven by Dave Tollner’s obsession to split up and privatise Power and Water and ensure it operates on a commercial basis.
Dave Tollner’s agenda is to make the most vulnerable in our community pay more for electricity, which is why he consistently raises concerns and denigrates the community service obligations currently being paid by government to Power and Water to keep the cost of living reasonable. We should all be very alarmed when Dave Tollner says:
The Treasurer is hell-bent on running Power and Water Corporation as a profit-making entity. It is riddled throughout his statement and central to his privatisation agenda. The Chief Minister has stated all options will be considered, including borrowing more money, raising taxes, reducing services and selling assets. The reason Power and Water Corporation increased debt over the years was to fund major infrastructure and repairs programs.
Treasurer, your reference to debt going from $290m to $1.2bn – you completely ignored the Mervyn Davies report, which required a $1.5bn investment in Power and Water Corporation repairs, maintenance and capital programs to keep the lights on. Little wonder, under you, we are now moving back into the blackout phases of Power and Water Corporation. Little wonder, under your watch, tariff increases are spiralling and the cost of living is out of control. Territorians have every reason to be in grave fear of the agenda being run by Dave Tollner in splitting up Power and Water Corporation.
This statement is a disgrace. You have attacked me personally. as former Treasurer of the Northern Territory, for a deal struck by CLP Treasurers and renegotiated by a CLP Treasurer. I think they did the right thing. I want it on the record that Ian Tuxworth and Marshall Perron, who pursued the vision of gas to service Channel Island, did the right thing. It was no easy thing for a very small jurisdiction in the 1980s to attract investment in a gas pipeline running from Central Australia to the Top End. This is why they chose to strike a deal to underwrite it. Thank God they were greater men than you will ever be, Treasurer Tollner.
Thank God Barry Coulter, in assessing whether or not he could renegotiate the deal and take it to Cabinet to sign off under a CLP government, took the time to have some economic modelling done by merchant bankers. The merchant banker said, ‘You will get about $120m in savings’, but advice received today indicates it was on the very conservative side of the ledger. In June 2011, when presented with a situation where there was a buyer – APA – for some $63m investment in a pipeline in the Territory, any Treasurer worth their salt would ensure our nation’s largest player in energy infrastructure wanting to buy a significant critical piece of energy infrastructure – you did not get in its way and the binding letter from Marshall Perron meant it would have been foolish to even try. APA would have said, ‘NT Gas, you are purchasing on our behalf’.
You are a fool, Dave Tollner. You have led with your chin on this every step of the way and have been exposed. Your agenda to slash community service obligation payments and to sell assets off Power and Water has been exposed in this statement today. You are hell-bent on trashing what CLP Treasurers before you worked diligently to build. That is a disgrace.
The assertions in this statement have been proven to be wrong, and you then do irreparable damage to our relationship with major companies, globally and nationally, respected companies such as APA. Stop damaging the Territory’s investment reputation.
As Treasurer, you should be ensuring that environment is good for our reputation and what you have done is the exact opposite. I have watched the Chief Minister damage our reputation in his reneging on the deal to provide gas to Rio Tinto. It was alarming and I had hoped you would learn the lessons, in government, not to tread so foolishly in your relationships with major companies. However, here today we see a disgraceful statement essentially attacking the relationship between the Power and Water Corporation and APA over the pipeline.
You should be deeply ashamed of your foolish, clumsy and ridiculous attempts to attack me by trashing the reputation of a fantastic, highly and nationally respected company such as APA. In your hell-bent pursuit to attack me, which is wrong in fact, you are quite happy to trash the reputation of your own comrades and colleagues, being Barry Coulter. I hope somewhere, somehow there is someone in this government who can control the way this foolish Treasurer behaves, because he is doing grave damage to the government’s reputation with corporate Australia.
The paralysis of your government at the moment means significant investors must be sitting back now saying, ‘I cannot proceed with investment decisions in the Territory while there is a huge doubt about the government’.
Investors will be pulling back and sitting on the sidelines, watching and waiting to see whether or not the CLP can climb out of this current paralysis. It is already not a good time for the Territory CLP government, by your own hand and your own making, in the way you went around the bush in the lead-up to the 2012 election making billions of dollars of unfunded and un-costed election commitments that are now coming home to roost and causing grief among your bush MLAs, who are threatening to break away.
By your own hand, you are damaging the Territory’s global and national reputation through that alone, but now, in the midst of all that, you allow your Treasurer to make a misleading statement on the Amadeus gas pipeline. You allow your Treasurer to condemn a gas pipeline deal that was struck by the CLP in the 1980s, renegotiated again by the CLP in the late 1990s and which had contingent liabilities sitting at the end of it. No government in its right mind would cough up $57.8m when there is a gas pipeline infrastructure player in the market to stump up, buy and operate that. Your unfounded assertions that I, when Treasurer, was involved in, presided over and dealt with negotiations between the Power and Water Corporation and APA over ongoing lease and maintenance arrangements are wrong.
You are outrageous in your assertions, completely wrong, and it is genuinely concerning that you will muck around in the gutter this low to try to score a political stunt when you have already, through your own actions, damaged the reputation of the Northern Territory.
Stop damaging our reputation in corporate Australia. APA, and others, will look at this and be aghast. Have you had a conversation with Barry Coulter today? If you have, you would surely apologise to him. You are not man enough to apologise to me, and I would never expect that to be the case.
You are damaging, by your own foolish behaviour, the Territory’s reputation. I urge anyone on the opposite side of the House to please pay attention to what this person is doing to the Territory’s reputation. He has gone far enough. I felt he went too far with his decision to rush headlong into the split of Power and Water Corporation. Thank God the numbers in the parliament this week have led to circumstances where there can be a Public Accounts Committee inquiry into the actions of this Treasurer in his hell-bent pursuit to split up Power and Water Corporation. It will save Territorians hundreds of millions of dollars in the folly of Dave Tollner.
Stop trashing our reputation with corporate Australia. This statement attacking APA, which is a fundamentally strong, capable and honourable operator of energy infrastructure, is appalling. You attack your own without naming them. Anyone knows who negotiated the deal, signed the deal and renegotiated the deal. They were all CLP.
I make no apology for when I was Treasurer and presided over a decision not to waste time in a bidding war with APA, which owns 96% of NT Gas, which had a written commitment from former Treasurer, Marshall Perron, saying ‘The NT government cannot bid against you’. I make no apology for that.
Undertake better research before you lead with your chin again, and stop trashing our reputation with corporate Australia. You are a disgrace as a Treasurer. I hope that whatever happens in the CLP government in coming weeks, they will wise up and get rid of you as Treasurer.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Mr Deputy Speaker, what a wonderful contribution from the Opposition Leader. She has reinforced why we were all very concerned about her time as Treasurer of the Territory government. As I said from the outset, this statement has nothing to do with APA and everything to do with the Leader of the Opposition, who was the shareholding minister while those agreements and sales were being negotiated.
I spoke to Mick McCormack, from the APA Group, today and told him up-front we are not aiming at him. We see APA as a model corporate citizen in the Northern Territory and they should not be offended. He accepted that in good faith. APA has a fiduciary duty to maximise returns for its shareholders. No one is having a crack at APA.
The Opposition Leader would like to somehow deflect this to APA, but APA was simply doing its job, and is still doing its job. It has been a good Territory corporate citizen for a long time now. There are no problems there ...
Ms Lawrie: Have you told your colleagues what they say about you?
Mr TOLLNER: You like dragging Barry Coulter’s name into it. Clearly you are having regular discussions with the man. That is great for you, Opposition Leader. The reality is this is a dodgy deal you have done, or should have done ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! That is offensive.
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I listened to the Leader of the Opposition call the member not only by his name, which is a breach of the orders, but also refer to him as a ‘fool’ repeatedly. If she wants to be offended by language of that nature, then she should not use similar language which is offensive in nature.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could you please withdraw, Treasurer.
Mr TOLLNER: I will withdraw. I understand how precious the Opposition Leader is, precious little thing. It is okay to be very precious while you ignore the fact we are staring down the barrel of $5.5bn worth of debt and that Power and Water’s debt went from $290m to $1.2bn under your watch. But, she will be offended if I call her dodgy. All right, I understand that. She is thin skinned and probably has a glass jaw, but good on you, Delia.
As I was saying …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker!
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Treasurer, could you please refer to the Opposition Leader by her electorate. Thank you.
Mr TOLLNER: All right, the member for Karama – the war zone at Karama. Clearly, her skin is not that thin. She is quite happy to have her electorate known as a war zone. She should be as she is the one who termed the phrase.
APA is a good Territory business. Nobody has a problem with APA fighting for its shareholders and fighting to maximise return for the APA company. That is its job, and clearly that is what it was doing. No one can hold that against them. It is expected it will negotiate as hard as possible, but we do not expect the other side to simply roll over.
In fact, I suspect the opposition did not roll over on this; I do not think the Opposition Leader was aware of what was going on. The Opposition Leader says this had nothing to do with the agreement coming to an end in 2011, nothing to do with her government. According to her, all this happened way back in the early 1980s with Marshall Perron. It had nothing to do with the Labor government in power at the end of 2011 when the pipeline deal expired and the balloon payment was required. I doubt the Opposition Leader had a clue what the terms of the contract were. If the Opposition Leader had a clue as to what was in the contract she might be highly embarrassed.
Today I saw a media release from the Opposition Leader with an interesting line in it. She said it in her statement too:
Hello! ‘Energy infrastructure business’. For the period 2006-12, or somewhere in that period, you presided over an energy infrastructure business called the Power and Water Corporation. Is that not energy infrastructure? Are power lines, wires and generators not energy infrastructure? You only see the pipeline that connects energy into the structure; everything else is different and has nothing to do with that pipeline. You have to ask the question …
Ms Lawrie: Not for sale, Dave. Not for sale.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, can you cut the interjecting please?
Mr TOLLNER: She says the pipeline is energy infrastructure but what it connects in to – the power station and the poles and wires – is not infrastructure, it is something else. Government has to own the generation business and all the poles and wires and everything else, but government should not own the pipeline that feeds the energy in to make the electricity and all that stuff. This is quite bizarre, and quite illuminating as to what type of shareholding minister we had during that period.
I listened to the Leader of the Opposition’s response. It goes from one ludicrous extreme to another. The suggestion that we are attacking the CSO – the Opposition Leader makes these things up on the run. Why would we attack the CSO? All we are suggesting is we separate the entities within the Power and Water Corporation. No one has suggested we are trying to remove the CSO. Similarly, one would expect when you are negotiating a pipeline you might look to see what is being negotiated. Not the Opposition Leader, who says, ‘No, that is nothing to do with us’.
She says there is nothing she does not know about Power and Water’s financials, but now we learn this does not extend to lease agreements Power and Water enters into. You have to ask the question any sane person does, about what other disclaimers she puts into place. ‘I know all about the financials, but I do not know how they accumulated this debt. I know all about the financials, but I do not understand why the government is worried about putting $150m of taxpayers’ subsidies into that organisation. I know all about the financials, but I cannot believe anyone suggested we did not get a good deal on that pipeline.’
You have to understand this deal the Opposition Leader knew nothing about …
Ms Lawrie: Barry Coulter negotiated.
Mr TOLLNER: That is right, Barry Coulter did it all. It was not the Opposition Leader at all. Barry Coulter did the deal. The deal he did is now with us for another couple of decades. The shareholding minister, when this deal was done, knew nothing about it because it was a lease and not the financials. She knew all about the financials but nothing about the leases.
Ms Lawrie: Were we meant to buy a pipeline for $63m?
Mr TOLLNER: Goodness me, Mr Deputy Speaker, could I draw your attention to the Opposition Leader? I sat quietly for a good 30 minutes of being called every name under the sun, having the vilest statements made about me and I did not interrupt once.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could the Opposition Leader please refrain for at least the next three minutes? Thank you.
Mr TOLLNER: In any case, every day that goes by the former government becomes more exposed. We have the waterfront fiasco, the prison fiasco – Labor’s great monument the prison Mahal as our Attorney-General refers to it. They will spend $1.8bn on a prison before it is done, great stuff. We have the dodgy Stella Maris deal. We have the AMS deal where they flushed money down the toilet; $70m with the government AMS system and close to $60m with the Power and Water Corporation AMS deal. We now have this pipeline deal. It seems every day we uncover something else about the former Treasurer, and you only have to look at the budget books to understand the damage the former Treasurer did to the Northern Territory.
I give Syd Stirling credit. He managed to keep things under control while he was there, and you can see the way things percolate along the line. The CLP was in government, then there was a change of government and Labor and Delia came in and bang! Up goes the debt, up goes the spending.
Ms Lawrie: Did the global financial crisis not happen?
Mr TOLLNER: The global financial crisis was a big green light – I forgot about that – for the Opposition Leader to rack up potentially $5.5bn worth of debt. Gee whizz, is it not lucky the global financial crisis came when we had the Opposition Leader holding the bank account? She was well and truly prepared to get as much money out the door as possible.
What a great comeback line: ‘the global financial crisis’. Everything was puttering along just fine and then the global financial crisis came. ‘I didn’t have a choice. I had to spend money as hard as I could. That is why there was the AMS stuff up, why we tried to hand over Stella Maris to our dodgy mates in the unions, why I had to build a monument to crime in Howard Springs in the member for Nelson’s electorate and why we blew almost $1bn of taxpayers’ money on a waterfront the private sector was prepared to build. It is also why we could not buy a pipeline so we would own a pipeline connected to our government owned power station, connected to our government owned transmission system, retail businesses and water and sewerage services.’
There were all those things, but somehow a pipeline, in that equation, should not be owned by government. They think it is the one thing that should not be owned by government because it is a pipeline not the other part of the business. I find the Opposition Leader’s response laughable. You will not be able to hide on this one, Opposition Leader. There is more to come on this, and every day more comes out about your failed management of Territory government finances.
I commend the statement to the House.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I condemn this government and the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment for:
granting a five-year Crown lease for 98 ha of Darwin Harbour without going to community consultation about the concept of a man-made residential island
we call on the minister to stop moves to develop a residential island in our pristine harbour and accept that our community values that Darwin is a city built around a uniquely beautiful harbour.
I acknowledge those community supporters here tonight to hear me speak. I would also like to pay special respect to the traditional owners, past and present. This motion says Nightcliff island is wrong. There is so much angst in our community about the proposed development of Nightcliff island in our harbour. It is unprecedented, from all walks of life and from people of all different backgrounds. It is from people who may traditionally care about the environment, through to those who are suddenly realising how beautiful our mangroves are, and they all call on you to stop this proposal now.
So much about this project is unknown, but we know your government has issued a lease over 98 ha in Darwin Harbour off the coast near Coconut Grove, Nightcliff for the purpose of feasibility drilling for a residential island. This is immediately offshore to my electorate, and has raised great concern within our community. When I questioned you in this House you tried to pretend the island has nothing to do with you. I quote from Hansard from 18 February:
You then went on to say:
I note Chief Minister Giles has been similarly positive about the proposal. On 4 February this year, on ABC radio, he described it:
Minister, our community is very concerned that you can be so dismissive of our views to issue a Crown lease and do not even bother to talk to us, and you then talk up the proposal.
The Northern Territory government has created the Crown lease for this project in open space in our harbour. People thought this space would be regarded as special and would never be developed. We understand sometimes developments are proposed on land, but the harbour? It seems more crazy than true; it is open space.
Under the Planning Act land includes land covered by water, and will include the sand flats and tidal areas at Nightcliff off Coconut Grove. Currently, this land is zoned public open space under the NT Planning Scheme. The scheme dictates what use and development is allowed on certain areas of land. In the case of land zoned PS, the scheme states that:
Development should be limited to that which is for public use and enjoyment, consistent with the recreation opportunities of the land, and has minimal adverse impact on adjoining or nearby property.
Under section 52 of the act, the Development Consent Authority must not consent to a proposed development if it is of the opinion a proposed development is contrary to the scheme provision.
I could not find anything more far-fetched than an island with no environmental considerations. Clearly, a residential development would be contrary to the scheme provision relating to public open space, and this is the widely held view in my community.
The current zoning of the land does not allow for residential development unless an exceptional development permit is granted. Therefore, any proposal for a mixed residential and commercial development would require an amendment to the zoning the land. There is a clear process allowing for amendments to be made to the NT Planning Scheme to rezone land. However, this clear process needs to be followed, something that has not been done to date.
All we have seen is creation of a Crown lease and drilling taking place on the lease. There has been a complete absence of consultation on this project by the developer, the government, by anyone. The most consultation I have seen is from our community, from primary school students surveying their street. It is appalling. Our community is seeking answers on this project.
Local residents have continued to approach me with numerous questions and concerns about the proposed Nightcliff island project. People are concerned the government has kept them in the dark to date and has not provided any information on what this project entails. This project has the potential for a massive impact on the Nightcliff area and the people who live there. The developer has been conducting geotechnical drilling to determine feasibility. The developer has said:
The statement went on to say:
To do this drilling, the government created a lot and approved a Crown lease for the developer to test this area. It is not clear on what basis the developer was granted this five-year lease before Christmas last year. Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment, you still have not explained on what authority the lease was issued, who made that decision and if this is still the case.
In regard to consultation, I recently conducted a community survey and hundreds of people responded. Around 75% of people said they had not heard of Nightcliff island before it hit the media and 88% said there was not enough community consultation before drilling started. This is a clear failure of the government to do enough for the community before it signed away the lease to drill.
I find it more incredible that acting Lands and Planning minister, minister Elferink, believed a public notice in the newspaper days before work was to commence met the lease conditions requiring public consultation engagement before any works commence. In January, the acting minister said developers had consulted and engaged because they had:
That is not consulting with the community. We did not even have the opportunity for a traditional planning process. There were no pink signs, no yellow signs, nothing. There was an ad in the paper, required by law for drilling safety, and that was it, drilling took place.
The Nightcliff community wants to ensure no shortcuts have been taken. It is time for the CLP government to come clean and let the community know what you have agreed to. It is understood a condition of the Crown lease granted by the government is a requirement for community engagement and consultation before works begin in the leased area. There has been no consultation. No one believes one ad in the newspaper amounts to consultation.
The government set up the Planning Commission with a commitment to engage the community at the earliest stage. This is not happening with this project. The local community is being left in the dark.
Minister, this massive island development in our harbour is not even on your own Greater Darwin Land Use Plan. Is it a case of the CLP government cutting red and green tape and cutting corners to fast-track development? It certainly feels so. Consultation to date has been non-existent, and that is not right. Territorians deserve to be treated respectfully and have their views heard. You need to allow this to take place. When will there be meaningful consultation about what could be proposed?
The consultation should be about if we want an island off our foreshore not if it is possible, then if we want it? The conversation should be ‘if’ first. The process should not allow a lease or drilling without an environmental impact assessment.
Over the two months since, there has been no consultation. I raised this matter earlier in the year. Minister, you said the real issue is:
Minister, you are asking us not to worry, to have faith in the process. We do not have faith.
In stark contrast the head of the EPA, Bill Freeland, said geotechnical drilling is needed before a proper environmental assessment can be made:
We saw drilling in the harbour without any environmental assessments. The government has confirmed the feasibility test in Darwin Harbour was not subject to environmental impact analysis since the EPA has determined it did not require any environmental impact analysis. All these actions have occurred in secrecy without any engagement or consultation with the community.
Tonight the government needs to assure the community there are robust processes to assess this project. To do that, you need to be open and accountable. To date there has been a complete absence of this. Local residents, rightly so, are extremely concerned. From the people who completed my community survey, 91% said they want more information and 87% are against the proposal. A total of 82% are against residential developments in Darwin Harbour altogether. Minister, you need to listen. A small community survey has such a strong outcome. People do not want our harbour changed. Minister, you are not listening. You listened on Elizabeth Dam and pulled it after a critical 7.30 Report. Can you listen to our community on these concerns?
I joined many local people last Sunday afternoon at the area where the island is proposed. People played cricket, ran around and enjoyed themselves. Kids played, dogs bounded around. This happens in this area on any day during low tide. Minister, this is our open public space, why do you feel it has to be filled with an island? I, and my young family, love spending time on the beach, wandering around, carefree, enjoying nature and spending time together. Part of the reason we live in Darwin is to access that within the heart of our city. I know hundreds of Nightcliff residents who also enjoy relaxing in the area. In fact, thousands come from all over Darwin, particularly on weekends, to enjoy it. You are threatening to change our way of life without meeting us. There was no consultation, no conversation, just the granting of a lease to a private developer and pretending it is all okay.
Minister and Chief Minister, this is not okay. It is clear there is a lot of angst in our community about this proposal because so much is unknown. There was no consultation around issuing the Crown lease and allowing the feasibility testing to take place without any environmental assessment. In addition to granting the lease, the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment granted the proposal significant development status and it is being referred to the NT Planning Commission.
The NT Planning Commission quietly released its Towards a Greater Darwin Regional Land Use Plan late last year. Nowhere in the supposedly forward thinking plan for our city is there any indication of an island in our harbour. How does the island link to other proposals in the plan? Will we see more islands in our harbour? Is this the first of many? These are some of the many unanswered questions because you are refusing to talk.
The project has the potential for a massive impact on the Nightcliff area and the people who live there. As the local member, I have sought feedback from residents. I invited residents to join me at a meeting last month and we discussed what we had been told and asked for more information. What does the planning process involve? Listen to the concerns of our community. At that meeting, residents who participated unanimously opposed the building of an island in Darwin Harbour for many reasons. People asked several questions about the proposal which, to date, remain unanswered.
Minister, as well as the social impacts there are huge environmental impacts. This island will impact on our mangroves. Mangroves are a crucial part of our ecosystem and important to the health of our harbour. I took the time to walk through those mangroves with an expert to learn about the different species. It is a beautiful place. We have eucalyptus mangroves. It is a very sandy area, different to traditional mangroves. To have that in our backyard is so important.
If this island is built experts assure me those mangroves will die. They are an important habitat for birds, mammals and fish by providing a breeding place and giving protection. Mangroves improve water quality by filtering pollutants, stabilise and improve the soil and are key to protecting our shoreline from erosion, something we are grappling with in other areas but not this area.
If you listen to the experts, minister, mangroves are best left untouched. The only time mangroves become a problem is when they are disturbed. This is why Darwin Harbour mangroves are protected under the Northern Territory Planning Scheme. It is obvious the mangroves will be disturbed should the island proceed. Damaging the mangroves will not help us ensure our harbour is healthy and will show your government is not serious about protecting our natural environment.
Another question I am asked regularly by local residents is around natural disasters and what preparations would be made with an island development. This Wet Season we saw particularly high tides and strong winds. We did not even see a cyclone, just high tides and strong winds. We saw havoc along our bike paths and foreshore coastal erosion. If we had an island, how would this impact it? Would development of the island impact along the coastal area? There are currently primary and secondary storm surge zones in Nightcliff and Coconut Grove. If an island is built would this change the storm surge zones? Would that impact on homeowner insurance premiums? These are just some of the questions.
What consideration has been given to homeowners in the area whose properties may move from the secondary surge zone to the primary surge zone due to the island development? They would be financially affected through higher insurance premiums. Would they be compensated for the additional cost? Who would compensate them, the government or the developer?
The extreme weather conditions of this Wet Season have shown this area is vulnerable to flooding and erosion. They are very real concerns, yet no one from government is explaining to the community how this will work. These are the questions our community is asking. If the island is built, it will have impact on tidal flows so you will not know what will happen, even if you think you are prepared. Silt will build up in certain areas and we might see midge problems we have not seen previously. These are the questions from our community. People feel threatened by the island.
Talking about the social impact, anyone who lives in the Nightcliff, Coconut Grove or Rapid Creek area is already dealing with extra traffic. Traditional large blocks are being developed; there are sites where apartment towers are still being built. These are things we have to deal with and best plan for, but we cannot cope with 3000 extra people from an island flowing through our community every day. It is unrealistic. Every year our streets become busier. It takes residents longer to turn on to Progress Drive and get off Nightcliff Road onto Trower and Bagot Roads.
An additional 3000 residents would put pressure on existing roads, water and sewerage infrastructure. Responsibility for maintaining and upgrading those assets rests with the NT government. What scoping work is being done on the financial implications of those works? Who will cover that?
Our community is full. Nightcliff Primary School is one of the biggest primary schools in Darwin. Our childcare centres are full, even Woolworths. There is no quiet time anymore; you cannot sneak down after lunch on a Saturday to get a parking spot. It is busy and this infill will put more pressure on our suburb. We cannot cope with 3000 more people, I cannot stress that enough. Where will the roads to get 3000 people off an island go? Where will these people flow through? Will they flow through the beautiful, peaceful Ostermann Street and Martin Crescent? Will they flow down Progress Drive, which is already backed up? These are the questions and concerns our community has and we have the right to know why the government has proceeded with this approval without explaining the project to residents or considering its potential impact on our harbour.
Minister, I urge you to speak tonight in this Chamber. Take the time to let our community know what is happening; explain the process to date. Everyone in the community is concerned. I have been contacted by numerous people expressing their views, concerns and dismay at the lack of information.
I have previously spoken in this House about a young primary school student, Bella, who lives in Coconut Grove, who letterboxed her neighbours. It is important enough to raise again. She is so concerned about the proposal. She has no idea what it means for her community, but she knows it is not good. She took the time – a primary school student letterboxed. She can consult, yet we see nothing from the minister and the Chief Minister.
There have been a number of community events with residents who have concerns with this proposal. They have rallied to show their support against the proposal of an island in our harbour. If this was Sydney Harbour it would be making international headlines, so it is not acceptable to try to sneak it past us. Granting a lease to explore the feasibility of an island in Sydney Harbour would be on the front page of every paper and news bulletin. You have previously implied we need to be calm.
In Question Time on 18 February 2014 you said:
This is public open space, a part of our harbour. People find it unbelievable there is a proposal to build an island there. It is not an inner city block we are looking at developing. It is not another area of our city which might be questionable; it is part of our harbour.
You claim it is just an idea, but this shows you do not understand the magnitude of what is being explored. I am also concerned, as are many others in the Darwin community, about time. We have not had proper consultation or time to hear the full range of views. We know many families of the broader Larrakia nation are concerned about the way this development proposal is unfolding, the potential consequences of development on the Nightcliff tidal flats and, more widely, the Nightcliff foreshore which defines so much, including a very rich Indigenous culture and history. Our foreshore and our harbour define our city.
I have had early discussions with members of the Larrakia community and am to meet with more residents of Minmarama Park and the Gwalwa Daraniki Association, which holds the perpetual Crown lease over the Kulaluk/Minmarama residential area. We need to ensure the views of all Larrakia people are expressed, and for the broader Darwin community to better understand the range of views held by the Larrakia about the development.
Some people I spoke to expressed concern about the way a five-year community purpose lease was awarded to the Halikos Group, seemingly ‘on the quiet’. They have also expressed concern about the government’s position that community engagement requirements under the lease have been met by the developers because they placed ads in the paper and that was all.
Like many others, they find it incredible the CLP government accepts this narrow view, and worry about the implications of other development proposals. Many people who have spoken to me about the Nightcliff island development are concerned about the possible impacts on the open space they use. Larrakia people still go there to hunt and explore the bays; there are cultural values. There is also the landscape of Ludmilla Bay.
For example, the Kulaluk fish trap is an example of where these views have not been taken into account. I know this because I had a briefing with your office – the one briefing I have had and the only representation our community has had with your government about this proposal. As a starting point, I questioned if anyone had spoken to the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority. If I was the minister and someone said, ‘Here, sign this for a five-year lease to look at building an island’, I would ask if they had spoken to the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority. Nobody has. The first step would be to speak to people and ask questions. We must listen to people who have spent hundreds of years living with our harbour.
One of the reasons we choose to live in the Top End is because of our harbour. We enjoy walking along the foreshore, having a barbecue with the family, watching the electrical storms roll in – like last Sunday – or getting out in the tinny and fishing. It is a beautiful harbour, and people enjoy it.
Talking of fishing, this proposal would greatly impact on fishing, and that is important to people who either take fishing seriously or, if you are like me, a little less seriously. I still like to get out in the boat and enjoy some family time. Whether you are a keen angler or someone who just enjoys time in the boat, this island will impact on you and your harbour. Dugongs, dolphins, fish, the mangroves and the water will be impacted.
Governments are meant to work for and with people, but your government is not. You are not meant to create risk, but that is what your government is doing by looking at a proposal for an island in our harbour. It is wrong for so many reasons. There are environmental and social reasons and the impact will be huge.
It is important to look at Cairns and what has happened with mangroves there. It is a good case study to show us what not to do. Prior to the establishment of the sugar cane farm in the 1970s, much of the site at East Trinity was a tidal zone dominated by mangroves and salt marsh. A wall was constructed, flood gates put in and, in the meantime, the tidal water was eliminated which meant the natural water table disappeared. More than 30 years later, after much clearing, re-contouring the environment and drying the marine muds, extensive areas have acid and sulphate in the soil and Cairns is spending millions of dollars trying to fix the problem. Its natural environment has changed forever because some mangroves were removed.
There has had a huge impact on Cairns’ fish records and fish stocks have depleted because of this. These are some of the lessons that should be learned, and we should not make the same mistakes. We only have to look to the canal estates of the Gold Coast. We should get it right in our harbour; it is a pristine environment. We have the chance to have a capital city on the edge of a beautiful harbour and to live in harmony.
In New South Wales a moratorium has been placed on new canal estates; they will not happen because they can adversely affect the environment. Mangroves are accepted as an important part of a healthy ecosystem, and prohibiting canal estates in New South Wales is one way to protect mangroves. Some states are cleaning up the mess and spending millions of dollars trying to solve problems, while other states have placed a moratorium on canal estates. Here we are looking at doing something similar and it is wrong.
This issue was raised, and came to a head in January, with an ad in the paper. Many people have contacted my office, visited me, and social media has been abuzz with discussion around Nightcliff island. I would like to read some of the comments from people. You have not come to Nightcliff and met with us, but this is what people in our community are saying. There are people here tonight who would love the opportunity to pass these on in person, but that is my role as the local member.
Cathryn said:
Charlie said:
Belinda said:
Nicola said:
Rod said:
These are some of the many comments from people who have contacted me concerned about this proposal.
A long-term Territory resident of nearly 30 years said:
I am worried that people are raising their concerns directly with me and they are falling on deaf ears with this government. For example, I know of one community member who wrote to you, minister, and you replied, ‘Whatever the outcome of the current geotechnical investigations, it is crucial to the future of Darwin and the Northern Territory that new ideas, developments, and industries be given a fair and open hearing. All proposals will be subject to community, environmental, economic and social standards, and the ecology of sustainable development of the Territory is something we also support.’
Minister, the ecology of the sustainable development of the Territory is supported by the community sending you a strong message: this proposal does not stack up.
Residents have the right to be respected and discuss whether they want an island. Yet, to date, you have not provided any information on what social and environmental impact analysis took place before you granted a lease for 98 ha of our harbour. Residents of Nightcliff feel they could not cope with an island community of 3000 people coming through their suburb. We are concerned about the lack of information on the proposal and disappointed your government is not being up-front.
Minister and Chief Minister, over the past few weeks our community has made it clear we do not want an island in the harbour off our foreshore. People have gathered outside parliament and in the gallery tonight to hear answers from you. Territory families and children in the area are worried about what the government will allow and what will happen. The overwhelming desire from our community is we do not want an island development. Minister, listen to the passion of our people. We are trying unique ways to get the message through to you but, to date, it has not worked.
I thank all from our community who have been involved in this campaign. It has brought the community together. Minister, Nightcliff island is not visionary, a community that stands up for itself is.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the motion to the House.
Mr CHANDLER (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Mr Deputy Speaker, before I step through the process for the benefit of the member for Nightcliff and others in the Darwin community, I thank the member for Nightcliff for her heartfelt contribution tonight. However, much of it was based on misinformation, because there is little information about a proposal put forward by a developer to the government. The fact it does not appear on the Towards a Greater Darwin Regional Land Use Plan says this was never a government proposal …
Ms Lawrie: Then rule it out.
Mr CHANDLER: … it is that new. I tell you …
Ms Fyles: You are the minister, rule it out.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Opposition members, the government was quiet during the presentation. Can you please show the same respect? Thank you.
Mr CHANDLER: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have faith in our processes and the fact any developer of something as substantial as that proposed would have to deal with three different acts of parliament – there are a number of processes to go through – and it undermines our processes if we rule out the opportunity for people who want to invest in the Northern Territory. If we take away that opportunity, what message does that send?
I have faith in the process, but I do not have faith when people spread rumours. I had a gentleman come into my office a few weeks ago, after speaking to the member for Nightcliff and attending a rally, who was concerned drilling in the harbour would somehow drain it. Scare tactics are being used and it is totally wrong.
The member for Nightcliff said mangroves will be destroyed. On the initial concept drawing I saw there was no damage to mangroves whatsoever. In fact, if there was to be a line drawn in the sand – can you imagine if the Northern Territory’s economy did not have INPEX? I assure you a few mangroves were destroyed at the INPEX site approved by the former government. You want us to draw a line in the sand that we will not destroy any more mangroves in the Darwin area, but it was okay for you. You have a different set of rules when in government to what you expect this government to do.
You have raised a lot of concerns tonight and followed up those concerns with the word ‘wrong’. You say, ‘It is wrong, it is wrong’. That is an opinion. I have spent time in the creeks around Nightcliff with Stuart Blanch from the Environment Centre. We went up one creek and it was fascinating; it is a beautiful spot. I mentioned, on the boat that day, that I could be there tomorrow in a boat with developers and they would have a completely different view of the same area. Does it make it right or wrong? It is just a different point of view; a different opinion.
You mentioned the number of people who live in Nightcliff. You are suggesting we put a gate just south of Coolalinga and do not let anyone else into the Top End. Let us not allow any development whatsoever. In fact, earlier today I looked at a couple of aerial shots of Nightcliff many years ago which showed a peanut farm and a lot of open space. It also showed a lot of trees and shrubs. If we used your rationale today, member for Nightcliff, you would not have a house because somewhere someone a long time ago decided to develop an area, plan and continue to develop. You would not be in a house; you would be living under some peanut bush if it was not for developers and people who had the confidence to invest in the Northern Territory.
I want to step through the process to date. The proponent has only been issued with a five-year Crown lease for the purpose of investigation and to undertake technical, environmental and financial studies only in relation to a proposed island reclamation development. The initial geotechnical investigative drilling works were referred to the Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority in the first instance. Any suggestion this has been a decision by me alone out of my office, and that we have done no work on this, is totally wrong.
In the first instance, it was referred to the Northern Territory EPA. The small scale drilling proposed did not raise any significant concerns with the NT EPA. The five-year lease contains conditions which require the proponent to notify the general public of any activity scheduled within the lease area. Accordingly, prior to commencing the studies, advertisements were placed in the Public Notice section of the Northern Territory News.
The Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment continues to monitor the proponent’s compliance with the investigative lease. Any proposed additional investigative studies will require further consideration under the Crown Lands Act, the Planning Act and the Environmental Assessment Act prior to commencement. Should the proponent wish to proceed with the development on the completion of the investigative studies it will be required to comply with all three acts. All three acts have provisions for community consultation, which the proponent will have to abide by. For example, a notice of intent under the Environmental Assessment Act; rezoning, subdivision and development under the Planning Act; and any notice of sale under the Crown Lands Act would require public notification.
In addition, the Crown lease issued to the proponent requires a level of community consultation to occur as it proceeds with its investigations. To greet with whipped up hysteria what can only be described as preliminary routine geotechnical test core works necessary to determine whether the project would proceed, is nonsensical. As is clearly spelt out on the Halikos Group website:
It is timely to remind the House this long-established family company is well aware of the priorities of the Darwin community. It has been operating in Darwin for more than 25 years. Its testimonial reviews include support from the Alan Walker Cancer Care Centre, the Palmerston AFL facility and Darwin Middle School. When its next accommodation complex comes online, it will have supplied nearly 1000 much-needed rooms and serviced apartments in the Top End.
Labor took its eye off the ball with regard to the tourism sector and we see a lack of current Labor policy to stimulate the economy, create jobs and provide homes within close proximity of those jobs.
The Northern Territory needs homes. Cities are about linking people and jobs with homes and work. Our capital cities see 80% of Australia’s economic activity, yet we have inherited a chronic lack of accommodation across the entire range of housing options.
The former Labor government did not cater for homes for Territorians. Labor, in opposition, is loud with its condemnation of planning for new homes. In government, Labor did not encourage densification, preferring to keep its head in the sand rather than risk suburban votes. The families in the suburbs are now suffering. Their children cannot afford to stay, and Health and Education employees cannot afford to move here to live or rent, and rents continue to rise.
This is because in our capital city we have less than half the population per square kilometre than Sydney. We do not have enough medium density or choice. We do not have enough homes full stop. Some of those lucky enough to have a long-term residence are determined other peoples’ needs are none of their business. That is a NIMBY approach. As soon as an advertisement is made for a development of any scale, they take to the streets, to social media, anywhere they can gain an audience and yell at the top of their voices, ‘Not in my back yard’, and you are leading the way, member for Nightcliff.
They do not want the process of defining housing possibilities to commence: tropical terraces, cluster apartments around gardens or a pool, townhouses or new family homes. They do not want anything to happen. Yet, those making noises have their homes in what were not built up suburbs only a few decades ago.
Prior to World War II, Nightcliff – as the member well knows – lay outside Darwin’s development area. It was a favourite picnic spot and a peanut farm at some point. There was lots of unspoilt bushland with a few homesteads. Then – it is noted in the history of the area compiled by the historical society – increasing pressure for suburban development led to the Territory’s first private land subdivision in Nightcliff. All other facilities followed. The city was growing and will continue to be added to. Schools will continue to be built as our area develops. In June 1979, the Census showed Darwin’s population totalled less than 50 000 people; it is now home to nearly half of the Northern Territory’s entire population, just under 130 000. My point is, the development of Nightcliff mirrored the growth and development of Darwin, and must continue to do so.
Darwin continues to be one of the most expensive capital cities in which to buy property. Darwin has some of the highest median prices of houses and units in the nation, Darwin is witnessing some of the highest rentals in Australia, and overall vacancy rates are so low queues to secure anything that comes on to the market are frustratingly long. If Labor does not know this, having been in government for more than a decade, it needs to wake up to the reality of its legacy. It is a legacy of negative impact on housing affordability, and the availability has created a stressed housing market. A lack of planning by Labor is impacting every sector of our population, from the most vulnerable to those posted in the resource or Defence industries, who discover they cannot find anywhere to live.
Growth does not need to be negative. Growth, properly planned, contributes to a city that attracts and prospers. We need homes near our city hub. We cannot afford to establish new towns on the road to nowhere not connected to sewerage or power infrastructure, transport and, above all, employment.
We must understand the importance of limiting sprawl, increasing densities and there must be a sense of perspective. My department is the department of Planning, not the department of no ideas, and this developer has the buzz and bud of an idea. It may, one day, lead to a new engineered island suburb once a full environmental impact statement has been completed with full community consultation. Equally, it may not, but we cannot draw a line in the sand in any of our suburbs and say, ‘Progress stops here’.
The CLP government’s policy, clearly stated within Framing the Future, is a:
In summary, the proponent has only been issued with a five-year Crown lease for the purpose of investigation to undertake technical, environmental and financial studies in relation to a proposed island reclamation development. The initial investigative drilling works were referred to the Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority for review. The small scale drilling proposed did not raise any significant concerns for the Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority. Any additional investigative studies proposed will require further consideration under the Crown Lands Act, the Planning Act and the Environmental Assessment Act prior to commencement. Should the proponent wish to proceed with this development on completion of its investigative studies, it will be required to comply with the Crown Lands Act, the Planning Act and Environmental Assessment Act policy and processes.
The Crown Lands Act, Planning Act and the Environmental Assessment Act will have provisions for community consultation, which the proponents will have to abide by, and there will be a notice of intent under the Environmental Assessment Act. If rezoning is required, subdivision development under the Planning Act and any notice of sale under the Crown Lands Act both require public notification.
In addition, the Crown lease issued to the proponent requires a level of community consultation to occur as it proceeds with its investigations, if it gets that far. The five-year lease contains conditions which require the proponent to notify the general public of any activities scheduled within the lease area. As we saw, advertisements were placed and complied with that part of the conditions. The Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment continues to monitor the proponent’s compliance with the investigative lease. There is a lot to go through before we reach the point of whether an island will be there.
I remember the negativity towards Cullen Bay many years ago. I recall speaking to – I will not embarrass them by naming them, but they were dead against Cullen Bay but today enjoy going there for a coffee. Today Cullen Bay is seen as a different part of Darwin; it is not everyone’s cup of tea, never will be. However, as a government, we need to provide choice for people. Not everyone wants to live on a 40-acre block, and not everyone wants to live in an apartment. Some people want 100 acres, some more. Some people do not want a three or four-bedroom home in the suburbs.
It is important, as a government in control of an area in the Northern Territory that is growing quickly, we have a good solid plan backed up by solid, robust regulatory practices to give confidence not only to the general public, but also to our developers with the confidence – and have shown the confidence for many years under both sides of government – they can count on government support, the opposition’s support and on community support when, and only when, proper processes have been followed.
As a government, we need to keep up with planning and growth in the Northern Territory. We cannot draw a line in the sand and say no one else is welcome. The greater Darwin area is a special place. We know it, we live here. Other people in this country should be afforded the same opportunity. People around the world should be afforded the opportunity to live in the Northern Territory. However, we cannot do that without good, solid planning or backing our processes.
Unless something is allowed to go through the process how do we know the processes are robust enough? If we say no to everything land prices and the cost of living will go through the roof, and people will not have the confidence to invest in the Northern Territory. If we do not allow things to go through the process how do we check if they are truly robust and pass the test? That test is where the community, government and investors have confidence in the government of the day. How do we test the processes if we do not allow things to go through them?
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, what an incredibly disappointing contribution from the minister. He does not get that we do not want, ever, a residential man-made harbour island. Our harbour is beautiful and iconic to Darwin. Nowhere in the NT Planning Scheme does it allow for a residential man-made island in our harbour.
You have not followed process because, if you had, it would have appeared in your regional land use plan which is currently under consultation as a high-level concept to allow residential development in our harbour. You did not follow that process. You snuck out a 98 ha Crown lease to a developer over Christmas, and the first the public knew about it was an ad in the paper.
We will fight an island development in our harbour. It is a disgrace you are even contemplating it. It is a disgrace you have not taken the time to engage at any level with the community to ask if this is what they see for the future of Darwin.
You talked about tourism. What do you think tourists find beautiful about Darwin? Do you think they would find residential island developments in the harbour beautiful? No. It is our pristine harbour and the mangroves around our harbour that are captivatingly beautiful. It is what we hold dear to our hearts. Yet, at no stage have you, as the temporary Planning minister – temporary because Planning ministers come and go and you are currently the custodian of the planning of our city – taken a moment to say to the residents of our city, ‘Is it okay if we consider a proposal to put a residential man-made island in our harbour?’
You have no right, minister, to breach that process. You should have put it in the regional land use plan if you want it as an option in the planning scheme, and it should have been consulted on first and foremost. However, you went to Crown lease phase without following the previous steps. You have no right to do that, minister. You are legally able to, but it is immoral and unethical. We will fight the island proposal because we hold our harbour dear. We will fight to save our harbour and the way it appears today so future generations of Territorians can enjoy it as we do today.
You lecture us on the development of Nightcliff. I grew up in Nightcliff; I lived in Nightcliff from 1970. I have seen the development and listened to the member for Nightcliff try to explain the pace and rate of development has reached the point where there are significant social stresses on the community. The road network is congested. I challenge you, minister, to live there for a day and try to travel in in the morning on that congested road network. It is getting worse and worse.
This is the cart before the horse. There has been no strategic planning into whether or not there is capacity for 3000 new residents in that area of Darwin. That strategic planning normally happens before you look at feasibility and provide Crown leases. You did not do it.
In government, developers came to us and said, ‘We would like Arafura Harbour. We want to carve up that beautiful public open space at East Point and put in some canal estates.’ We said, ‘No’, and it did not go past that. In government, when a developer came to us and said, ‘We want to put a residential man-made island into Darwin Harbour, Nightcliff island’, we said, ‘No’, and he did not get past that. Your government says, ‘Sure, here is a 98 ha lease. I will slip it out over Christmas when, hopefully, no one will notice. Do not worry, the ad will pop up in January. It is pretty quiet in January; get out there and do some testing.’
It is outrageous. Your behaviour has been disgraceful and, when the community says, ‘Stop, don’t do this, consult with us’, you do not consult. You do not visit the community, you do not have meetings with the community and you do not say to the developers, ‘Put your proposal before the community and explain what you are on about’. You do none of that and then try to say we need housing. ‘How can people afford to live here without additional housing? Do not draw the line in the sand for housing.’ What utter nonsense. Do you seriously think there will be affordable housing on Nightcliff island? I do not know how much they will go for, but you would want a good $1m for a unit there. Really! It is not the answer to Darwin’s affordable housing problem. To destroy our harbour is never the answer to Darwin’s affordable housing problem. It would be a blight on our landscape with our pristine harbour changed forever. Minister, where does it stop? Is this island number one? Do I head off to Old Man Rock at Casuarina and stick my favourite island out there? Do you duck around to East Point and put an island there? Maybe head over to Sadgroves Creek and say, ‘Hey, let’s put an island here’.
What strategic planning thought process went through your mind when you signed off on a 98 ha Crown lease? Did you stop to think this is what our community wants our harbour to look like? If you did not, surely someone around you would have suggested you consult with the community to see if this is acceptable. Minister, it is not, and you can paint us as anti-development all you like, but one of the reasons I was respected as Treasurer of the Territory for five years was for being honest with business people. I did not let people waste millions of dollars in feasibility studies if it was not an acceptable proposal to our community. Today a developer is spending millions of dollars on a feasibility study. If the proposal is not acceptable to our community – which it is not – why allow them to waste that kind of money? They could put it into providing housing elsewhere ...
Mr Chandler: You would not allow that either.
Ms LAWRIE: What are you doing? I pick up on the interjection, ‘You would not allow that either’. The same developers have built 130 C2 high-rise apartments in the CBD, all under Labor. We are not anti-development or this particular developer. We are anti-planning gone wrong where, in anyone’s wildest imagination, you think you can build a man-made residential island in Darwin harbour. It is beyond bizarre, absurd and unacceptable.
The member for Nightcliff was right. Can you imagine someone having this conversation in Sydney? ‘Hey, I’ll build a man-made residential island in Sydney harbour.’ They would be laughed out of town ...
Mr Chandler: They would never have a bridge.
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on the interjection, ‘They would never have a bridge’. What is that? It is a transport corridor link between one side of the harbour and the other. If you have a great vision and want to build a bridge across Mandorah and open up Kenbi, sign off on the land claim. We had planning for a population of about 100 000 over there so go for it – bridge, tunnel. The conversation has been going on in Darwin for decades. A bridge is not a man-made residential island, which is high-end premium real estate. This is not affordable housing; do not dress it up as affordable housing.
This is not opposition to terraces, family homes, growth or to support new housing in Darwin. It is opposition to a man-made residential island in Darwin Harbour. It is a line in the sand, in the mud, or to protect the mangroves; it is a line to protect our harbour and the way we are as a community.
This community is nestled around a beautiful harbour, we are so fortunate. You heard the member for Nightcliff talk about what this means to people. The afternoons walking along the foreshore are some of the most incredible memories of my life, growing up in Nightcliff, playing in the mangroves and chasing the mudskippers. I want our children to experience that. We lose so much in the name of growth; can we please not lose our harbour? Do not change our harbour forever when you have no mandate to do it? You did not go to the 2012 election saying, ‘By the way, I have had a conversation with a few developers and am happy to carve up East Point into Arafura Harbour and put a man-made island at Nightcliff’. You did not have that genuine, honest conversation with our community because it would have resoundingly rejected it.
If you think this is the voice of just a few, some fringe voices out of touch with what the community wants, I challenge you to consult with the community. Run a poll, pay for research, have some meetings, consult and you will find it is not the fringe voices of a few. We hold our harbour near and dear to our hearts. Our tropical, beautiful Darwin deserves to be preserved. It does not mean we cannot build houses and terraces and provide for growth. The bulldozers are moving through places like Nightcliff and Rapid Creek, redeveloping those old blocks at a pace we have not seen in a long time. Unit developments are going up on corners all through the place.
Gatewell does not exist anymore, it is unit developments. This is not about saying no development at all, ever, anywhere. You have completely missed the point if you think that is the argument. This is our harbour; you have no right, minister, to even consider a proposal and allow a Crown lease over 98 ha of our harbour, granted under your signature, without consulting our community first.
If you truly believe in this project, if you back your words that it is visionary, test it with the people because you are only custodian for a point in time. You have no right to irrevocably change our beautiful harbour and we will fight you every step of the way.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I understand people are concerned about this and I share those concerns. However, just before this debate started the Opposition Leader was lecturing government on the signals it sends into the community, and how reckless those signals would be. I heard the Opposition Leader talk about the purity of the harbour and say she holds it dear to her heart. However, it was she who, when in government not so long ago, placed on the table, if memory serves me – she spoke with great affection about INPEX, when it put out an environmental impact statement saying it might use gelignite to blow up Walker Shoal and dolphins might die as a result. She had no problem with it then, not at all.
There is a shifting of the sands in her position. She had a problem then because she knew she had to send a very clear signal to the investment world to say, as a jurisdiction, we have processes in place, and she referred to that in the debate immediately prior to this one. She said we should not send signals into the investment world where we hang a shingle on the door saying, ‘Closed for business’.
I am not defending this island at all; not for one jot am I saying this island must go ahead. However, if people want to invest in the Northern Territory we must describe a process to them. That process means they must jump through all sorts of hoops, including convincing the people of Nightcliff this is a good idea, because if they do not they will not get very far down the road because environmental impacts will have the people of Nightcliff showing their response. The development consent processes and other legislative instruments that apply will enable the people of Nightcliff to have input and demonstrate all the reasons this should not go ahead. If that is the case it is unlikely the development will proceed. You must also understand the plan circulated by the Northern Territory government, which does not show this island, is also an impediment to the island because the developer must also convince government, as well as the community, this is a good idea.
The argument from the opposition is to scrap process and say, ‘No, it will not happen’. That is the wrong signal to send. I do not know if this development will get up, but I suspect it probably will not because of the hurdles in its way, one of which is the people of Nightcliff. They will have every opportunity to challenge this through the processes the developer will have to go through. Let us talk about what is happening. As a general rule, miners, if they want to drill for a viable mine, do not have to put in environmental impact statements. They get an exploration lease, drill a hole, look down the hole, look at their core sample and say, ‘No, there is nothing there. It is no good to us.’ They put the core sample down and drive off. They are required to fill in the hole, which they do, and any remedial work is generally a quick tidy up in the area. One thousand such holes will be drilled before one mine happens.
Halikos has said to the government, ‘We want to scratch and look down the hole to see if we can do this thing’. The government of the day said, ‘We will not make any promises whatsoever’, and it must jump through all these hoops. On top of that, it must convince the people of Nightcliff this is a good idea, and I suggest at this stage it has not done a good job of that.
The Leader of the Opposition asked if we have spoken to Halikos. I have not spoken to John, but have with Shane Dignan. I raised the issue with him and said, ‘Mate, if you want to convince people of this you have to convince them of it’.
How it chooses to do that is its business. It is the company’s money at risk in the face of a government which has said it has to jump through all these hoops, as well as convince the people of Nightcliff this is a good idea. At this stage, all we have said is we make no promises. Halikos has to go through all the processes should it want to go down that path. If it is that interested and wants to drop a couple of million, or however much it costs to drill a hole to see if there is enough rock for its idea, okay, drill a hole. It has drilled a hole and that is all it has been permitted to do.
If it turns out it drilled a hole and found nothing but mud, and keeps drilling and finds nothing but mud, it will pull the drill up, drive off, and you will never hear of this idea again. If, however, it drills a hole and finds rock and thinks, ‘My goodness, as a result of our exploration the island is possible’, then a process starts. The process will be all the hoops Halikos has to jump through to convince government, the people of the Northern Territory, particularly the people of Nightcliff, the idea is feasible and usable.
If mangroves are the issue that will, through the environmental impact process, defeat the project. If the opinion of the people of Nightcliff is an issue, I suspect from what I have heard in the Chamber tonight through the people of Nightcliff – I presume that is the people of Nightcliff up there – the project will be defeated because Halikos will not get through the Development Consent Authority stages. If there are issues about the social impacts on Darwin – and that is a demonstrable social case – then the development will not go ahead because it will not get through those hoops. It has to go through the process.
However, the opposition is arguing to scrap the process and send a signal out that if you choose to invest in the Northern Territory it will be determined on the opinion of a politician somewhere.
Processes exist to give integrity to the government and the environment in which a government governs. We have a process outlined in mining legislation of what people are allowed to do when they explore, and what they are allowed to do when they develop a mine. Those processes exist so we can send a signal saying there is an understandable process to go through.
Courts have very clear and understandable rules and processes to go through so the integrity of those processes can be observed by the participants. The opposition is arguing for an abandonment of those processes. We have offered Halikos nothing other than the chance to scratch a rock and look down the hole, in the same way an exploration company will drill a hole and then say there is nothing there. If the exploration company wants to develop a mine, it has to jump through amazing amounts of hoops to reach the point where it develops the mine.
The Opposition Leader’s message is: do not look because we will not tolerate this in the first place. That is currently the position of the plan being circulated by this government. It is not in the plan. Should Halikos decide to pitch this, it will have to deal with the first stumbling block, which is the government’s plan.
However, Halikos has not been able to describe what this looks like because it will not spend a huge amount of money developing a plan for an island when it does not know what is underneath that potential island.
It has created a vacuum, and the media has filled it, the opposition has filled it and a number of commentators have filled it with all types of suggestions which, unfortunately, have not been challenged by the Halikos Group of companies. The vacuum has been filled. I open up this newspaper and the island looks like a crocodile with McDonald’s signs and all types of things on it. I open the newspaper next week and it looks entirely different because there is nothing in that space. What drives a lot of community concern is it does not know what this is because it has not been described and has not even been applied for yet. The only thing allowed is what a mining company is allowed to do – see if it stacks up from day one.
If it does, it has a bunch of hoops to jump through. I am certain the member for Nightcliff will engage in that process on behalf of her constituents if they describe it as a major problem. If that is the case, good on those constituents and follow the same processes available to everybody else so the facts can be heard by the Development Consent Authority or something similar. An island of this nature would have to jump through the EPA environmental impact statements; many things would have to occur. At every step there would be some type of public consultation. The EPA would receive comments from the Northern Territory Environment Centre in a heartbeat on this. The Northern Territory Environment Centre has already been front and centre with this and I do not doubt it would continue on that path.
However, as a government we cannot hang the shingle up and say, ‘Do not suggest anything outside the normal processes’ because we do not accept it. We say if you come to us with an idea like this you take all the risk. If you are to convince the people of the Northern Territory this is a good idea, you will have to take all that risk as well. It is not government’s job to sell this project, and I am not selling it. I have opinions about the project but I am not selling it. It is up to the developer to sell this project and demonstrate its worth to the people of the Northern Territory.
The company should promote this. We are the custodians of – the Leader of the Opposition used the word custodian – the process. The process must have integrity so we can demonstrate to the investment world we have processes in the Northern Territory which can be followed and relied upon. Every time the government side steps a process we erode the confidence of others to invest money in the Northern Territory. If we do it regularly that risk increases, which means people are less inclined to come to the Northern Territory to develop because they feel the processes are not available to them.
Sometimes there are controversial suggestions, I understand that. Those controversial suggestions will often scare people simply because of the nature of the suggestion alone, and people will respond with anger and irritation. As a government – the Labor government ran this argument as well – you have to keep the integrity of your processes secure. For that reason, the Leader of the Opposition, in the debate immediately prior to this one, was telling the Treasurer there are processes in place which must be protected because we need to protect the integrity of our jurisdiction in the eyes of other jurisdictions and people in the community.
She was running that argument in the debate dealing with the sale of a gas pipeline – the processes and signals we send out are very important. ‘We do not want to be sending the wrong signals’, she told the Treasurer, ‘on how we go about our business’. The next moment the Leader of the Opposition is saying, ‘Ignore process, set it aside. We will not go through process, we need to be reactionary.’ One of the great joys of opposition – I should know because I was there – is you are like the captain of a speed boat. You can change direction on the turn of a dime.
The problem – the Leader of the Opposition knows this – is in government you are in charge of an oil tanker. Every time you want to get that large ship to change direction you have to stand on the wheel, and it is slow to change direction. You then have to warn everybody about the direction you are taking, which is why you develop policies and processes.
If the Leader of the Opposition was genuinely concerned about the harbour, she would have said no to INPEX or, alternatively, put it at Glyde Point, which would have been a better solution. She would not have supported an EIS which said we could kill dolphins in the harbour using gelignite to destroy Walker Shoal.
If she genuinely believed in the harbour she would have this priority in government, but she knows the position of government is different. That is why, when she was in government, she supported projects which damaged mangroves in the harbour. She passed legislation enabling the INPEX project to go ahead, applied specific performance to INPEX so it got specific control of specific land which was destined to destroy mangroves. She had no problem with it then, but she sees an opportunity now. Whilst I appreciate the opportunity she sees, and the genuine concern of the people of Nightcliff, it is somewhat disingenuous to be a defender of process one minute and in the next debate say, ‘Set aside process because this is what everybody wants’.
People should have reliable processes to go through, and that is not what I am hearing from the members opposite. It is up to government to make sure processes are available, but it is up to the developer to jump through every other hoop. It has not started jumping through any of those hoops, but is scratching a rock in the same way an exploration company does when it is looking to establish a mine.
If I was a betting man with my nose pressed to the glass, I would wager this project will never go ahead because it will run into the resistance it has until now through the appropriate junctures and times when this resistance is informed. It will be informed because if you go through the development consent process you have to show your hand and everything you are proposing to the Development Consent Authority.
The Leader of the Opposition and the member for Nightcliff are representing the people of Nightcliff. The argument about having to protect the mangroves above all else is a little disingenuous, when the Leader of the Opposition previously legislated to see mangroves and reefs destroyed and dolphins potentially killed. The member for Nightcliff has not been here long enough to have the same legacy. This project has a long way to go. All the proponent has said is, ‘We want to be like an exploration company and look first’. Let us see what they can do after that and the process can then begin.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, what can I say? The member for Port Darwin, like the member for Brennan, is clearly Robinson Crusoe on his own lonely island if he believes and has faith in CLP government processes, which are clearly flawed. Nobody on this side, or in the public gallery who has been at the protest march today and at meetings – the people of Nightcliff – has faith in them.
I support this very important motion put forward by the member for Nightcliff and acknowledge the hard work she has done in representing her electorate; the people who expect her to represent their collective interests. Their interests are, quite rightly, centred upon the current CLP government not listening to their collective voices about how unhappy and angry they are an island developer is proposing to build on the foreshore in Ludmilla Bay. There has been a shameful lack of community consultation, with a five-year Crown lease granted to explore development of a man-made residential island on public land. Not only do I acknowledge my colleague, the member for Nightcliff, I also acknowledge the people of Nightcliff and the Friends of Nightcliff who are rallying to say, ‘This is not right. We do not accept this proposal, we do not want this proposal and we do not want an island.’ These are words the CLP government, and the minister responsible for the environment and planning, have either not heard or simply ignored.
I also speak as shadow minister for the Environment, a responsibility previously held, very capably, by the member for Nightcliff. I also speak as someone who knows what it is like to see your community under siege. I do not have to tell the House what is happening in Nhulunbuy at the moment. A mining company has somehow been able to extricate itself from lease obligations with a moment’s notice, without any pressure whatsoever exerted from both levels of government. The future is uncertain and under threat, with no rigorous social and economic impact analysis, but plenty of big talk and spin about how hard the government is working for the future of Nhulunbuy and the line, ‘Trust us, everything will be fine’. Yes, I understand and empathise with the people of Nightcliff, the supporters of Nightcliff and the journey those people are on. I have some insight into what it feels like to be under siege from a government more interested in working with business from the big end of town than the good people, families and Territorians it is supposed to be governing for and whose interests it is supposed to represent.
Before members opposite brand me as anti-development, let me be clear that the objections about the Nightcliff island project centre on a complete lack of consultation about development. It is an extraordinary development and hardly what I call visionary. It would be a man-made island, potentially home to 3000 people with a range of residential dwellings including a 14-storey tower, none of which anybody would believe will provide affordable housing. There is nothing wrong with vision and a future plan, but it is important it is a shared vision where people have input. This is a cart before the horse proposal. This is a five-year Crown lease granted by the Northern Territory government over public land, with a lot allocated and named as NT portion 7264, of a considerable size at 98.6 ha.
I attended a community meeting at Nightcliff on 17 February, as did a number of my colleagues on this side of the House. The minister chose not to attend. It was held at Nightcliff Sports and Social Club. The unanimous message was residents do not want drilling on their foreshore and do not want a man-made island, which would be home to 3000 people, at the front of their house. This is not because they were or are necessarily anti-development, but because people are gravely concerned about a number of matters. There are the negative environmental impacts, which include the prospect of sea surges, the devastation on the delicate coastal environment, the biodiversity of the mangroves and the threat to them and marine life. There is the impact severe tropical weather will have with a dirty, great big island sitting out the front. Where will I find the rigorous environmental impact study or anything resembling it?
People are rightly concerned about the impact on Nightcliff and its capacity to deal with an extra 3000 residents, as outlined so succinctly by the member for Nightcliff. They are concerned about the impact on road corridors and traffic flows in and out of Nightcliff, the capacity of services like sewerage, schools, other critical infrastructure, not to mention costs. What about the potential impact on property values? Where, in the government’s planning in the forward estimates, do we see the cost of this delivered? Where is the rigorous social and economic impact analysis, including the potential cultural and heritage impacts for a project which has been given significant development status?
Perhaps I missed it, but where is the report from the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority raised by the member for Nightcliff, which assures us on this lease on public and community land the current regime of drilling is not interfering with areas of cultural significance, or not drilling through or possibly going to build upon somebody’s song lines?
One of the clearest messages was people are angry because they have not been consulted and fail to see any openness and transparency in how the CLP government is working with key stakeholders. These are not just the people of Nightcliff but those of us who know, love and value Darwin, which is built upon the beautiful pristine harbour and waterways which surround it. They do not want to see a man-made island off the picturesque Nightcliff foreshore, fearful that if it was to proceed the impact – including environmental impact – would be significant.
According to the member for Port Darwin, who was minister for everything during the Christmas/New Year period, including acting Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment, people were consulted and engaged about drilling because a public notice was placed in the Northern Territory News to advise drilling was to commence over the Australia Day long weekend.
I heard the rather extraordinary ABC interview with the member for Port Darwin on the morning of 23 January, where he dismissed drilling activity as just ‘scratching a rock’, language he has continued to use on the floor of the House this evening. Nobody believes it is about ‘scratching a rock and peering down a hole’. Pressed by the ABC interviewer about a lack of consultation and engagement about the drilling program about to commence, he reminded the minister it was stated in the terms of the lease:
As we know, the minister’s response was inadequate and defensive and he maintained a public notice in the Northern Territory’s daily newspaper was okay. Nobody agrees with the minister that a public notice in the newspaper counts as public consultation or engagement.
The granting of a lease in the absence of consultation has people up in arms. A public notice is not consultation, and certainly not about engaging with people in any way, meaningful or otherwise.
It is small wonder those concerned about the proposed Nightcliff development started to rally and take action – I have spoken about the meeting – through petitions and asking questions of the government. They raised concerns with their local member, the member for Nightcliff. They formed a collective. They have had public meetings at the Nightcliff foreshore, one as recently as the weekend. They had guest speakers and experts addressing them to highlight the threats to the delicate coastal environment which threatens the fabric of their home, their community and the beautiful seaside suburb.
I go back to that public meeting I attended in Nightcliff on 17 February. There were more than 100 people in attendance united and unanimous in not wanting Nightcliff island. This was not a lunatic fringe group or a group of troublemakers. This was a large group of residents; decent, intelligent but worried people who clearly articulated their concerns and objections and what they saw as a threat to their home, their community and the negative and irrevocable impacts on the environment and their quality of life.
The concerns of one man, a long-term resident, who said he had been to more protest marches in the last few months than in the last 40 years, struck a chord and resonated with me. He was standing near the steps of parliament around 4.30 pm this afternoon for yet another protest by those people, not just from Nightcliff but those Darwinites who support the efforts of the people of Nightcliff to protest.
At the community meeting in Nightcliff I was introduced to an environmental scientist by the member for Nightcliff. I was invited to be part of a detailed briefing with that scientist about the incredible and unmitigated risk a man-made island would bring with it, and an invitation to take a walk through the mangroves area in Ludmilla Bay. I accepted and spent an informative and illuminating time – close on two hours – learning more about the crucial role mangrove forests play in the biodiversity of the marine ecosystem environment, and seeing, firsthand, what is there and why it is important it not be disrupted. I learnt that 42% of Australia’s mangrove forests are in the Northern Territory. There are multiple species and a wealth of life and activity within them which protects the coastline.
I live in Nhulunbuy, one of the most beautiful and unique coastal environments in the country. It is pristine and healthy because of a low population and very limited development which might impact upon the coast, its mangrove forest and the broader marine environment. As you would be aware, we face major changes in our community in closure and, at some stage, the alumina refinery will close. My community, including traditional owners, is concerned about the environmental risks associated with closure and is currently seeking assurances the ramp down process will ensure and protect the pristine environment.
Whilst the government and the mining company are willing to provide those assurances, I contacted both the Environmental Defender’s Office Northern Territory and the Northern Territory Environment Centre to seek support and guidance from them. I would like to acknowledge both organisations today for the support they are providing the campaign objecting to construction of Nightcliff island. I place on the record my concern and apprehension about the current talk of cutting green tape and, at a federal level, the axing of the Environmental Defender’s Office funding, which will see this very important community legal service defunded by the end of June ...
Ms Lawrie: Shame.
Ms WALKER: Indeed, shame on the federal government for that short-sighted step. That gives me, and I am sure the people of Nightcliff, no assurance we will be protected from poorly thought through developments.
I acknowledge and thank the Halikos Group representative who provided a briefing to our Caucus in early February about the Nightcliff island proposal. I have no doubt Halikos is a decent corporate citizen, and the former Labor government, as the Leader of the Opposition outlined, has worked with it as a developer to deliver good projects in the Northern Territory. However, I cannot support a proposal which has yet to go through any rigorous assessment and planning, even at the most preliminary level. It is not just the geotechnical drilling which is under way, but consultation around the most basic of questions.
Do the people of Nightcliff and Darwin want a man-made island in the middle of Ludmilla Bay just a little more than 100 m offshore? It is not a hard question to ask. I am not anti-development, but we need to see sensible, sustainable and manageable development which minimises the footprint and allows people to be actively engaged in meaningful and transparent consultation.
I commend the motion to the House and thank the member for Nightcliff for bringing it forward this evening. I commit to continue holding this government to account and responding to the collective expectations of Territorians who have made it clear they do not want to see Nightcliff island progress.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nightcliff for bringing this motion forward and for working with the local community, which is something the government has not been doing. I support this motion which condemns the CLP for granting a Crown lease of 98 ha of Darwin Harbour for Nightcliff island.
One thing made clear through this debate is everything the minister has said, as well as the member for Port Darwin, is redundant if you have a sound principle of which developments you support in Darwin Harbour. If you have a clear understanding of what you support, you can say no from the start. This is something the CLP does not understand. It does not understand where the passion against this project is coming from, because the CLP has given permission up-front without consultation. It has given permission for the idea of Nightcliff island in our harbour. If you have clear principles of which developments you support in our harbour, you can say no to it straightaway.
We have that on our side. We confidently say no to Nightcliff island because we have a clear understanding of what we support in our harbour. The CLP does not have those principles. We are having this debate because the CLP has given permission.
The first step in any process is gaining permission from the landowner. If you want to build something on my block you need my permission; you cannot do it without my permission. The NT government has given permission and that is why we are having this debate. Everything the minister said about process and acts in his 30-minute speech is redundant if, at the first step, you say, ‘No, you do not have our permission to build Nightcliff island in our harbour’. Unfortunately, the CLP lacks those principles, which is why we are having this argument. That is why the people of Nightcliff are upset, why the member for Nightcliff has been working with her community and why people are campaigning strongly against this. They are shocked the CLP – they are probably not shocked – does not have the principles of not building in our harbour.
The CLP approach to Nightcliff sums up this government. It sums up its arrogance, its refusal to listen to Territorians and its failure to follow process. The process is: ‘Do you have permission?’ The CLP should not have permission. It sums up the disregard the CLP has for our environment and our community, and it sums up its dysfunction. It sums up how governments do things the wrong way. They make decisions before they talk to the public. They grant permission before it should be granted.
The first step is gaining the landowner’s permission. Our current government does not have sound principles around developments in our harbour. This project should have been stopped at the first meeting. As the Leader of the Opposition said, she would not have the developers wasting money now because we would have said no at the first meeting.
This process sums up how the CLP is deliberately trying to deceive people and keep them in the dark. If the CLP truly thought the public would embrace the idea of Nightcliff island, it would be yelling it from the rooftops. The Minister for Business said the Territory is open for business. They are trying to go through this sneaky process – it is not a process, we have not given permission. We saw the drilling; they are scratching a rock and something might happen. It smells, because if you had a sound principle around development in our harbour you would say no.
The member for Port Darwin said, ‘Well, we might say no later. We don’t know.’ You, at the heart of your party, support the idea of Nightcliff island because if you did not support it you would have said no and it would not be happening.
One reason the CLP is not consulting is because if it lets people have a say we know what they will say. They have told us clearly and told the member for Nightcliff. They have said it at public meetings and will keep saying, ‘The CLP has put the cart before the horse. It wants to get this island approved with minimum fuss.’ It will not work.
The CLP does not want people to be able to say they want this area of the harbour protected. An advertisement in the paper is not consultation, and to say it is the developer’s role to consult in this instance is wrong. It is government land. The government is deciding whether Nightcliff island should happen. The government should be consulting with the people and it is not.
The people will be heard on this. We have seen that tonight with the gathering outside Parliament House. We saw it on Sunday with the gathering at Nightcliff foreshore. We have seen it at public meetings the member for Nightcliff has held and other public meetings community groups are holding and will hold.
Someone asked if I thought the Nightcliff island decision was another example of the CLP being so dysfunctional it did not have its eye on the ball when the lease was gazetted, or whether it was a deliberate decision to grant the lease without any consultation. It was a good question and a hard one to answer. We have seen so many things where it is difficult to decide whether the reason behind a bad CLP decision is dysfunction, dishonesty or a desire not to consult and listen to the public. We have seen the government, time after time, ignoring the public and experts. In this case it was a bad decision trying to avoid public scrutiny.
Let us see where the CLP started with this project. In May last year, the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment asked the Planning Commission to prepare a report on Nightcliff island. The Planning Commission described Nightcliff island as a private development proposal for a stand-alone waterfront community. In its annual report, the Planning Commission said its primary role is to develop strategic plans, planning policy and engage with the community. The Planning Commission did not engage with the community in relation to Nightcliff island or in what they describe as a private development proposal for a stand-alone waterfront community.
This raises many questions. Has the minister received the report he asked for last May, and if so, will he release it? If he does not have it, why was the lease granted? Why did he or the Planning Commission not engage with the community? Why did they ignore the primary role of the Planning Commission? The CLP’s Planning Commission is failing its first test. The CLP appointed one of its own mates, a former member of parliament, Gary Nairn, to head up the Planning Commission.
It is clear his job is to make sure the community is not consulted; his brief from the CLP is to get projects approved with minimal input from the public. I had a similar experience in my electorate of Fannie Bay. The Planning Commission said it would seek public input into any urban densification of Darwin. This work has not yet been completed. The CLP has announced it will proceed with the urban densification of Old Sports House. I requested this development wait until the Planning Commission looked at it, but unfortunately, the Planning Commission decided not to look at the project. It staggers me the Planning Commission is looking at urban densification yet would not look at this project.
The CLP has tasked the Planning Commission with the project, yet has made decisions before the Planning Commission has done its strategic report. It staggers me the way the CLP is making decisions.
Look at the term ‘stand-alone waterfront community’. That means the public will be locked out; other waterfront developments such as Cullen Bay or the waterfront itself have public facilities and are accessible to everyone. This is our harbour, it is not a place for a private stand-alone waterfront development or an island.
It is interesting to compare the secretive approach of the CLP to Nightcliff island with the open approach of Labor to the Arafura Harbour proposal. There was huge public debate on Arafura Harbour. In government, we were always keen to hear from people. You should never assume people are NIMBYs; it was something the minister said that offended me. People have strong opinions about their local community and we want that. The government should not be afraid of people having strong opinions about their local community. They should not be tagged as NIMBYs, and objections to Nightcliff island should not be tagged as NIMBYism.
We responded to people’s concerns around Arafura Harbour, and, as the government of the day, we said no. The first step in any process of development on someone’s land is to get the owner’s permission. On Nightcliff island, the CLP has taken the opposite approach and awarded the lease without any consultation at all ...
Mr Tollner: It is a short-term lease to undertake an investigation.
Mr GUNNER: It is a short-term lease, an oyster lease, and nothing to do with Nightcliff island. The CLP has said up-front it is open to the idea of Nightcliff island; it has given permission up-front. We said no at the first step because if the landowner does not want a project to happen it will not. That is where the first decision is made. The CLP support Nightcliff island otherwise we would not be debating this today. Geotechnical drilling would not be happening. If you do not support Nightcliff island just say no, it is as simple as that.
The people of Darwin have been formally removed from the future planning of our city by the actions of the Planning Commission.
The CLP claims this lease is just for drilling to see if the project is viable. Nobody believes this. Why test if you plan to knock back the project? Will the results of this testing be made public? Will other developers be asked for ideas in this area?
We are talking about our harbour. The project is off the Nightcliff foreshore. Maybe CLP members are relaxed because it is not near their electorates. Maybe they are making a political decision about something in a Labor seat. It would be a shame if they are, because this is a legacy for our harbour. Members opposite: if you oppose this motion, you support the concept that people in your electorate will not be consulted on projects which affect them. The CLP is doing this without consultation or talking to people.
On behalf of the residents of the Fannie Bay electorate, I stand with the member for Nightcliff in supporting this motion. We oppose the CLP’s secretive approach to Nightcliff island, and we oppose Nightcliff island.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not support south Dubai. It is time the government declared it is the guardian of vision and showed it by saying this is where development starts and this is where development finishes. If you keep nibbling away at your vision it is gone before you know it. That is what is lacking in this debate.
I take up the point made by the member for Fannie Bay: you could have said no up-front. That is not sending a message to people that you are opposed to development; it is you believe in orderly planning and planning in the right place. If you do not believe in that, you end up with a dog’s breakfast of a city and a stuffed harbour. If you really believed the harbour was the centrepiece of our city – it is not in my back yard, I live at Howard Springs.
It is my capital city and it should be designed and planned around our harbour, with the harbour as the main feature we can protect, enjoy, tell people about, and show pride in our city and that we have looked after the harbour. If we keep nibbling away, we will not have a harbour.
I did not agree with INPEX going where it is. The Labor Party was in government and knows my point of view on it. I know what it did, and why it did it. People know I have always wished the centre of the harbour had remained a national park, like the Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park in Sydney. People in Sydney, in the old days, had vision. Unfortunately, in many cases vision disappeared. We have a gravel scrape, gas plants, immigration villages and workers’ camps there now. I am sad that was not kept as a centrepiece of the five city vision the CLP put forward, something I agree with. I am not anti-development, and I will get to that in a minute.
The government could have put this to bed at the beginning by saying, ‘Sorry Mr Halikos, we are not open for business in the harbour’. Why could you not have mentioned some of the sites the CLP pulled down in its day? There is still a paddock where the old nurses’ quarters used to be. What has happened to development there? Are we short of land or is that land untouchable? I have not heard anything from the government about development of that land. What about the old power house? What a sad day when the power house came down, when you see what other cities have done with their power houses. The CLP pulled the old power house down. It could have been used for development. All that is left is a concrete slab.
There is land available where the government could have said, ‘If you have a good idea, Mr Halikos, can you build something that will help the housing shortage?’ It will not be affordable housing. I have yet to see one private developer produce affordable housing in the Territory.
If that person said, ‘I have a plan to produce more housing’ – we are not short on land; we are not Singapore – we could say, ‘You have a proposal, we might be able to help you’. No, we have given a leg in the door to say, ‘We don’t really have a vision. We are a bit wavery, our vision is a bit blurry’, instead of saying, ‘We have a vision and are sticking with it’. It is out of bounds so the developer should look elsewhere.
That does not send a signal you are anti-development. It sends a signal you are a strong government that believes in proper planning processes and the harbour being the centrepiece of our city and surrounding areas.
If you were consistent, you would not have made an announcement, minister for Planning and also Chief Minister, you were dropping Weddell. You are saying, ‘This is only a concept’. Weddell, to some extent, was only a concept, but perhaps you dropped Weddell because it is a shaky place in parliament at the moment. Perhaps it was because of the Blain by-election. I hope you dropped it because of the science. You would have ruined an estuary of Darwin Harbour, but you dropped that because you had a vision. That vision is the plan that has always been there, the 1990 regional land use plan changed to the previous government’s regional plan, which removed the dam from Weddell and set aside the area for conservation. I think 95% of our mangroves are still protected under that plan.
I see some inconsistencies here. One may be for convenience; one may be because you do not want to upset people who donate a few dollars during an election campaign. I become annoyed when the minister talks about NIMBYs and progress. I have been a strong supporter of development of Coolalinga, which is an orderly development within the boundary of a district centre and is booming. I supported it. Some people might not have supported Maccas. I am not a great Maccas fan, but I will go there for a coffee or chocolate late at night. It employs 120 mostly young people, so I am supportive of that type of development.
Please do not call me anti-development. I am for development through a proper process which protects our environment and culture, which is not just Aboriginal culture. It is the belief I live in an area I love. I love the bush, the harbour, the Wet Season and the Dry Season. We live in one of the best places on Earth. I am a passionate rural person. When we talk about choice, I can see our choice being threatened by a lack of vision and by expanding small development into the rural area.
I also see a lack of long-term vision in relation to living a low energy lifestyle. That threat, to me, is the word ‘infill’. We shove people into little boxes. Yes, that might be all they can afford until the power goes off and they wonder what has hit them. Is there room for kids to play? Is there room for people to sit under a tree with the birds? The birds probably drop on you, but can you sit under a tree and read a book? Do we allow for that space in our thinking or is it just infill? I presume our planners recognise we live in a tropical climate in Darwin. We do not live in Melbourne where people can live closer together. The windows are shut because most of the year it is pretty cold. It is a different environment, so I start to wonder whether our vision is becoming a copy of an Adelaide suburb.
If I took a picture of some of the Darwin suburbs and put it against a picture of some down south, I would be pushing uphill to say which one was Darwin. It is saying, ‘Yes, we need development’, but in an orderly manner and that is what worries me. Does the government have a real vision it is willing to stick to? Is it shaky on it; too scared when someone has a good idea because they are developers and friends of the party? Are they too scared to say, ‘Sorry fella, you can’t do it’?
People often ask my opinion about developments around the area. I try to be honest and say in the end it is not for me to decide but the Development Consent Authority. I tell people that before they get a bright idea, especially if they know it could be controversial, before they do anything and before they go to the DCA, they should doorknock – ask people in the area what they think of the plan.
That mistake has been made here; they did not try. There were two mistakes, one being the government probably should have said no in the first place. If the government says, ‘We will think about it’ – if I was the government I would say, ‘If you think you have a chance, talk to the people of Nightcliff; knock on their doors and tell them what you are proposing’. Do not give them something wishy-washy. Tell them you want to put a 14-storey building up that no one can enter unless they pay good money. Tell them where the sewerage and water will go, tell them how they can access it and what effect it will have on the tides and mangroves. Give them some idea you are seriously interested in hearing the opinions of people in Nightcliff. If people said it was fantastic – I doubt it – but if they did, at least you did the right thing at the beginning. However, this does not seem to have started off that way.
I will go back to my first issue. It should not have gone this far, the government should have said, ‘This is our vision for the protection of Darwin Harbour. Sorry, mate, we are open for business, but here is the fence. This bit we will keep for future generations, the fish, the fishermen and fisherwomen, the aesthetic beauty of our community, and somewhere we can have a few human feelings.’ It is not all about dollars or all the other stuff driving economic development all the time. If we do not take into account we need places to enjoy to have a feeling of ownership – they belong to us not a private individual – if we start to take that away we take away some of the soul of people living in the area.
The government’s failing is not having a clear vision. Sorry, Mr Halikos, I understand this might be a fantastic thing from your point of view and I just named two places where you might be able to do it. Talk to the government and say this is not a good idea. We do not need south Dubai in the middle of the harbour. If your plan is worth pursuing ask the government for land. It will not be cheap, but it would be very expensive to put an island in the middle of the harbour. Why not invest the money into purchasing Crown land?
The old hospital site – I am not saying all that land should be developed into high rise, but it is a big piece of land. What is happening to it and the old power house?
The plans I saw for Darwin waterfront had land that could be turned into residential. It is not affecting the harbour; it might affect a few people who cannot see the harbour, but that is another issue. There are options. Mr Halikos, it is good you want to put money into the community and create jobs and housing, but do it in the right place. In the middle of the harbour is not the right place.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Mr Deputy Speaker, this motion moved by my colleague, the member for Nightcliff, is a very important planning matter in her electorate.
The member for Nightcliff is a fierce advocate for the residents of her electorate. She listens attentively to the concerns of families and businesses in the Nightcliff electorate and advocates on their behalf. We saw this today in her passionate advocacy for constituents who have expressed concerns about the impact of the proposed Nightcliff island on the environment, the amenity of adjacent suburbs, recreational heritage values and traffic volumes and management.
The proposed Nightcliff island is a huge project which, if constructed, will have a huge impact and implications not only for Nightcliff, but adjoining suburbs and Darwin as a whole. Many people from suburbs across Darwin have raised concerns about the proposal with members on this side of the House. Central to these concerns is the veil of secrecy shrouding the project and the total lack of accountability from the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment concerning this significant proposal. Given the scope and potential impact of Nightcliff island, it is a basic and reasonable expectation of the community that the minister would be up-front, honest and transparent from day one concerning the proposal. That is not the way the CLP operates and certainly not the way this minister operates.
In the run-up to the last Territory election, the CLP promised to be an open and accountable government. The CLP’s five-point election plan said:
Let me repeat that:
That promise will come back to haunt this minister and this government, and not just in relation to this project. The minister’s secrecy has done the proponent a great disservice. When geotechnical feasibility drilling for the project commenced, the residents of Nightcliff and Darwin in general had not been consulted, and had no information on what was going on in our pristine, beautiful harbour environment.
It is little wonder there was, and remains, a groundswell of concern in the community about the proposed construction of an island of 98.6 ha adjacent to our city’s beautiful foreshore suburbs. Why was there no information about the project? Because the minister, in the run-up to the Christmas vacation period, signed a five-year lease:
It was in this climate of CLP secrecy about important land use matters that the member for Nightcliff, in response to representations from her constituents, arranged a public meeting to listen to the concerns of local residents and others concerned about the proposed island. I congratulate the member for Nightcliff for this initiative to hear the concerns of her constituents, a commitment to consultation that is not on the minister or this government’s radar. The meeting was held at the Nightcliff Sports Club and was attended by about 130 local residents and others either concerned by the proposed island or simply wanting more information, like the rest of us.
In addition to the member for Nightcliff, the Leader of the Opposition, the members for Fannie Bay, Wanguri, Nhulunbuy and I also attended this meeting, knowing the importance of this proposal. We have all received representation from our constituents about the secrecy surrounding the project and its potential impacts.
I will share with honourable members some of the points raised by those in attendance. While not exhaustive, they reflect legitimate community concerns exacerbated by the minister’s secretive approach to the proposal. People there said:
the development proposal is not consistent with existing zoning
residential development is not compatible with existing biodiversity, and
Others said:
the project is in a surge zone that could redirect water into residential areas
Others said:
we need a feasibility study to inform discussions on whether we want this kind of development
Had the minister accepted an invitation to attend the meeting, he could have addressed some of these concerns, but he did not front. Many of the constituents of Johnston are also concerned about the proposal and they too have been kept in the dark by the minister’s failure to provide any information about the proposal.
Many people in this House and outside know I am a born and raised Darwinian. I grew up in Jingili. I spent a lot of time at Rapid Creek, which I am very proud of, and something close to my heart is fighting for the survival of Rapid Creek and that area. What is also very important to me and my family is our cultural heritage, and the significance of understanding the meaning of certain special places around Darwin and the Territory.
During the 1970s, my mother used to take me and my sisters to the area around Nightcliff and Ludmilla Creek. As the member for Karama knows – she grew up in that area as well, and she may have been friends with my sister at some stage. We knew the significance of that area. My mother, with family members and Larrakia people, took me around those areas when I was younger to teach me the cultural significance of that specific area as well as East Point, Rapid Creek, and the whole of Darwin.
Some of my best memories, as the member for Karama said of hers, are walking around that area at low tide, listening to the stories, going hunting for crabs and going fishing when the tide was up. I have continued that with my children. As soon as my son was old enough to walk, I would take him to those areas and relay the stories and significance of growing up there and how important it is to protect the area.
Once they go they will not come back. That is something we in this Chamber must all remember: once they go they will not come back. It is not like we can get rid of Nightcliff island if it goes ahead and say, ‘We have stuffed this up; we got this wrong. Let’s rip it down and start again.’ The impact on the environment, the mangroves, the dugong, the turtles, the crabs and the fishing in that area will be significant.
I have listened to the arguments tonight and found that side of the House does not get it. They are walking over – the situation is you have allowed geotechnical drilling testing to go on without any formal process, none whatsoever. On this side, we are standing up for residents. The member for Nightcliff is doing a great job in sticking up for the people who voted her in. She is representing them, trying to get information from the minister for Lands and Planning. We attended a briefing and we thank the minister for organising that briefing. We walked away not shocked, but concerned and disappointed about the information we received.
I have queried this many times: I still do not get what an oyster lease is. I am waiting for the minister, maybe the member for Port Darwin who is listening in the Chamber, to tell me. There is an oyster lease over 98.6 ha of our beautiful harbour. I am still learning the shadow Lands and Planning portfolio, but I do not know what an oyster lease means and how you give that to a developer to drill in our pristine harbour.
I am more than happy to listen to advice from the minister or somebody on that side of the House who can tell me how you are awarded an oyster lease in our pristine harbour. I will cop it on the chin, but would someone tell me what that means.
The member for Nightcliff and I walked away from that briefing, and while we appreciate the briefing by the department and the minister’s office, we were disappointed and a little dismayed.
We wanted information. The member for Nightcliff has been asked many times, as I have at my office in Rapid Creek on Sunday mornings. I joined the member for Nightcliff at Nightcliff markets because the amount of concerned people coming in – we thought, as the closest electorate and with people coming to me as the shadow minister for Lands and Planning, I would go with the member for Nightcliff on a Sunday to Nightcliff markets. Rapid Creek compared to Nightcliff markets is a bit different, but we were continuously busy with people stopping to talk about Nightcliff island and the lack of information coming out.
That is the issue here. We are still fighting for information and why we are using our time on General Business Day to get some answers. I applaud and commend the member for Nightcliff for sticking up for her constituents and trying to get some answers out of this government, which is not coming to us or anybody else about this project. We have all received representation from our constituents about the secrecy surrounding the project and its important impacts.
We have had many instances of people, like us, not understanding how you are granted an oyster lease to drill a couple of holes and perhaps scrape a rock, as the member for Port Darwin famously said when he was acting as every minister over the holidays. I do not think those comments will go away, and I think you said it again today. All we ask for is more information ...
Mr Elferink: You had briefings. Were you not listening?
Mr VOWLES: We had a briefing and, like I said, there was silence ...
Mr Elferink: Did you telephone Halikos? I did and spoke to them.
Mr VOWLES: Thank you, member for Port Darwin, we can chat after. If you have things to talk about I am more than happy to have that conversation ...
Mr Elferink: You did not seek any information, you chose to …
Mr VOWLES: You have already contributed.
A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Standing Order 51: I ask that I not be interrupted.
Getting back to the motion, I congratulate the member for Nightcliff for bringing this motion to the House. It is important all our colleagues on this side of the House are listening and contributing, and that is what we want to do.
The minister’s secrecy has done a great disservice to the proponent, the people of Darwin and his reputation. I conclude on a point I made earlier in respect to a solemn pre-election promise made by the CLP:
I commend the motion to the House.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Mr Deputy Speaker, a few years ago I was mixed up with part of the AACAP program – where the Army goes into communities building houses – as part of a parliamentary Defence exchange program. I dressed up as an Army man for a week and went to Borroloola to work with Army engineers building houses. My goodness, what a great bunch of people they are. It was an interesting time because it was when the river diversion was happening at McArthur River. There was a big public meeting and I remember it well. I turned up in Army clobber, in camo gear and sat at the back of the meeting, which was eye-opening. One hundred and fifty or 200 people were there. I think the former member for Arnhem was there listening and making contributions.
Brian Hearne, the then boss of McArthur River mine, was explaining the river diversion and the packages put in place for the community. Somebody jumped up wanting to ask a question. They asked Brian Hearne what he would do with all the nuclear waste the mine produced. He looked a bit gobsmacked and said, ‘What nuclear waste are you talking about?’ The guy replied, ‘The nuclear waste you are producing at your mine’. Brian said the McArthur River mine did not produce nuclear waste. This person jumped up and said, ‘There you go, lying to us again!’ The crowd was uproarious in its support for this bagging of Brian Hearne. I have never heard too many more bizarre things in my life ...
Ms Lawrie: What you are saying right now is bizarre.
Mr TOLLNER: You are probably wondering – I notice the Opposition Leader is back to her carping again, sitting on the sidelines doing nothing but throwing mud because it is the way she operates. You might ask what this has to do with this debate. I listened to the member for Johnston’s wonderful speech about the secrecy of this government. It made me think of that event. ‘There you go, it is all secret. You are not telling the public anything.’ Member for Johnston, there is not much to tell the public at this stage.
You have a developer with an idea to build an island. The developer does not know if it is feasible and has asked to test the waters to see what is on the sea bed and if it is possible to build an island ...
Ms Fyles: Do you agree with it or not? That is the question.
Ms Lawrie: Do you support it?
Mr TOLLNER: I do not know what we are supposed to be supporting or not supporting. That is the point of this motion. You say, ‘No, you can’t support that’. What are we supposed to be supporting? The proponent does not know what type of development it is building yet. We are told to rule out whatever is being proposed and stop it ...
Ms Fyles: If you care about our harbour you will.
Mr TOLLNER: ‘If you care about our harbour you will’. There you go, lying again. You remind me of being …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, withdraw that.
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw, Madam Speaker. I apologise, I notice you have resumed the Chair. I was referring to a meeting I was at in Borroloola, and a person jumped up to accuse Brian Hearne of lying. It was not directed at any member opposite; it is the accusation of lying, because you will not say whether you do or do not support an idea ...
Ms Fyles: Do you support an island in our harbour?
Mr TOLLNER: Goodness me, we do not even know what we are talking about. Guys are there, as the member for Port Darwin said, digging a couple of holes and scratching a few rocks to see whether something might be feasible. If it is, they might put a submission together for the government and the public.
We are in this Chamber on General Business Day debating something – we do not even know what we are debating, do we …?
Ms Lawrie: Yes we do, you do not.
Mr TOLLNER: No, you do not, because there is no proposal yet. A bloke has said, ‘I wouldn’t mind seeing if it is possible to build an island here, I don’t know whether I can or not …’
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 67. The proposal has been given significant development status and referred to the Planning Commission. There is a proposal and we are debating it.
Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, sit down.
Mr TOLLNER: You are running interference again, like you always do to give yourself some legitimacy. At least let us look at what is possible, what is not possible and whether they will or will not progress an idea. There is a process involved here: community consultation, environmental impacts, social impacts, traffic impacts are all assessed. For the luddites opposite, you might not think these things are taken into account when a developer makes an application for a development, but they are. At the moment, all it wants is a lease to legally drill a couple of holes and scratch a few rocks.
There are pros and cons of drilling a couple of holes. What crustaceans will we upset when we do that? If we scratch a few rocks, we might move something. I do not think the entire prawn fishery will die out from drilling a couple of holes. I do not see many recreational fishermen there in boats when I regularly drive past that area. It is not a fishing hot spot. Maybe it is, I am not an avid fisherman. Perhaps people go there in the dead of night and that is the time to be there. Do not hold me to account on that one ...
Ms Fyles: Do you agree with an island or not?
Mr TOLLNER: Do I agree with an island or not? What island? There is no island there. There is no application to build an island ...
Ms Lawrie: There has been an application. It is a 98 ha lease.
Mr TOLLNER: No, there is an application to assess the feasibility of an island. What happens if the mud is 45 m deep? Do we think the developer will build an island there? Come on! Perhaps there is solid rock a couple of feet below the mud, and maybe you can get some footings in there easily enough to build an island. It could come back saying that. We might have something to discuss when the developer says, ‘Yes, it seems quite feasible; we can do it. Here are some plans to look at. This is what we want to do, here is how we manage traffic and this is the type of development we want to put on this new island.’ Then you might have something to talk about. Apart from that, what do you have to talk about? You whip up hysteria, you have a bunch of people sitting out the front of parliament at lunchtime similarly ignorant to what is going on ..
Ms Walker: Are you accusing these people of being ignorant? Is that what you are saying?
Mr TOLLNER: Everybody concerned about this is obviously ignorant there is a process involved ...
Members interjecting.
Ms Walker: You are an embarrassing fool.
Mr TOLLNER: That is going out on a limb, isn’t it? Goodness me!
I look at how Labor does business in the Northern Territory. It is like the McArthur River mine river diversion. I have no doubt the person who asked the question about the nuclear waste was a Labor Party stooge and there …
Ms Fyles: These are not all Labor Party stooges, Dave.
Mr TOLLNER: Have all the Labor Party stooges cleared out? Is that what you are suggesting?
Ms Fyles: I did not suggest that.
Mr TOLLNER: It was obviously a Labor Party stooge. I saw what went on with Arafura Harbour; that did not get a look in. No one was allowed to present the idea. It was not allowed to go through a process because the government decided, ‘This could be a bit controversial down the track. We will scrap this before it gets legs.’
I saw how former Chief Minister, Paul Henderson whipped up hysteria about a building in Casuarina I could not work out why anyone would have objections to. He quickly gathered together a community action group in his office; his electorate officer did all the secretariat work for that community action group and it put the kybosh on a development there. That was all pretty damn good.
This is what the Labor Party calls community action, where you whip up hysteria around nothing; fabricate some argument and run it like something is happening. Arafura Harbour has me beat because part of that is in my electorate, as many people know. There have been development applications all around the Nemarluk Drive area and parts of Ludmilla, and all have been knocked on the head. The great threat to any development is storm surge. That is what irks people and is the big concern about why there should there be no more development in the Ludmilla, Coconut Grove and Fannie Bay area. No one wants development there in case they are all washed away by massive rain, a tidal wave or something flowing through there ...
Ms Fyles: Cyclones? Category one to five? You forgot about them.
Mr TOLLNER: Cyclones, that is right. A good friend and constituent, Graham McMahon, lives on Nemarluk Drive. He is a great bloke and I get along with him very well. We tend to disagree on some things.
He whipped up a little barbecue one afternoon and 150 to 200 people turned up. He had one of those pool skimmer poles you can extend out and he put a red rag on the end of it. He was talking about a 7 m storm surge coming through the place. He held this thing up and said, ‘Look way up the top there. Do you see that red flag? Up there is 7 m. Can you imagine a wave that high coming through here? We would all be wiped out.’ It would not just be Ludmilla wiped out, but the entirety of Darwin and Palmerston as well if we had a wave of that magnitude.
That was the reason for stopping the four blocks of units someone proposed to build opposite – on the other side of the road from residents in Ludmilla. He spotted me at that meeting and said, ‘Our local member is up the back. Come on, Dave, come down and tell the constituents what you think about this development.’ I was not ready for that; he put me on the spot and there was a bit of pressure from the crowd. I wanted to stay incognito. There was no staying incognito so I shuffled up to the front. He said, ‘What do you think about this?’ I said, ‘I do not have a point of view either way. I am interested to gauge community sentiment on this.’ He replied that I must have something to say, and I said I did and would not mind asking a couple of questions. I said to the people in my electorate, ‘Hands up everybody who lives in a storm surge area’. Ninety percent of the people at the meeting were locals, so 90% of the people put their hands in the air.
I then said, ‘All those people with your hands in the air, leave them in the air if you want the government to compulsorily acquire your house’. Pretty well every hand went down, except for my good friend, Graham McMahon. On this issue we are divided, but he knew what was coming so he kept his hand in the air. One or two others who kept their hands in the air wanted the government to compulsorily acquire their houses because of the dangers of living in a storm surge area. He said, ‘What is that all about?’ I said, ‘It sounds a bit like hypocrisy, doesn’t it?’ The crowd did not like that at all. I said, ‘It’s like me owning a really fast car and getting my kicks driving down the highway really fast. But, God help us if anybody else wants to own a fast car. You cannot because they are dangerous. I am allowed to own one because I already have one, but anybody else who wants to have one no, you cannot have one. It is all right to live in a storm surge area …’
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 67: digression. We are talking about Nightcliff island.
Madam SPEAKER: It is not a point of order. The minister has some flexibility in his comments. Minister, you have the call.
Mr TOLLNER: We are talking about planning issues, Nightcliff island and all that stuff. Many people in that are happy to live in a storm surge area; they love it the way it is. They like living in a storm surge area, but no one else is allowed to move into that same storm surge area and they will protest it every way possible …
Ms Fyles: This is in the middle of the harbour.
Mr TOLLNER: That is right; this is in the middle of the harbour. This is not where other people live, and you have already worked up a bunch of self-righteous outrage about the audacity of somebody doing something in the harbour where no one lives. No one lives there, therefore no one should be allowed to.
I am glad they brought this motion and debate on. We needed a bit of brevity today. It has been a tough day for a few of us and it is fantastic we can have a laugh with some nonsensical motion. We will all get up – you guys on that side are all very serious. ‘This will be the greatest environmental disaster to hit the Northern Territory and no one has been consulted. We will go to hell in a hand basket if Mr Halikos gets his way.’ We on this side can have a bit of fun. We look at you and think, ‘Look at them, they are all so serious. They all have this pent up outrage.’
You must have been cooking this for a month to get into the state where you get a crowd out the front. I can imagine the member for Nightcliff at the markets on the weekends or doorknocking. ‘We are having a protest next Wednesday on the steps of parliament. What do you think about this horrific island?’ It is not south Dubai, as our comical friend, the member for Nelson said. You can imagine how they have gone about this. It is quite fascinating – have a group of people fill the gallery, get them all hyped up ...
Ms Fyles: Dave, the comedy festival …
Mr TOLLNER: Sorry, you got them from the school?
Ms Fyles: No, the comedy festival is next door.
Mr TOLLNER: I am sorry, member for Nightcliff, I thought you said you found them at the school. God help us, I hope they are not teaching our kids.
It is all quite funny. I am sure in a few months’ time Mr Halikos will have carried out his studies, know if he wants to progress this idea or not and have a proposal or not. By that stage, if he has a proposal and wants to progress it, half the Northern Territory will be going nuts. They would have worked not just Nightcliff, but the member for Fannie Bay will be going hell for leather on this one. The member for Wanguri – Wanguri is pretty close to Nightcliff, so they will all be worked up …
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker. Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I seek an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Mr TOLLNER: I thank the opposition for allowing me to continue. I do not want to continue much longer; I find this rather comical.
I am the type of bloke who wants to incubate, grow, build and develop innovation. One of the worst things you can do for innovation is kill it before it starts. I know how crazy and crack pot some of these ideas can sound. They say for every 1000 ideas one of them might work. However, you never find out which one might work unless you look at all 1000. That is the thing about innovation. People like John Halikos, Even Lynne, those who are prepared to take a risk, are people we should value in our community. They are the people we should encourage. If they are prepared to put up some serious dollars, stake their reputation and good name on an idea, the least we can do, as a community, is look at some of these things ...
Mr McCarthy: Can you not direct them to some really innovative spots outside the harbour?
Mr TOLLNER: Of course we can. It is not up to me to direct anybody. The member for Barkly is saying, ‘Make them do this, make them do that’. Halikos has not said it wants to do anything except test an area off the Nightcliff foreshore ...
Ms Lawrie: No, they have an island proposal.
Mr TOLLNER: They have an iron-clad proposal …?
Ms Lawrie: An island.
Mr TOLLNER: It has a proposal which says if it can test the soil and look at what is on the ocean floor it might develop a plan to build an island. I think it is a dream of John Halikos’ to create an island there, and if he looks around and finds it is not suitable, he might put in an application somewhere else and test the sea bed. That is another protest, another reason for your existence in opposition and some other cause you could jump on. He might strike it lucky first time around ...
Ms Fyles: It would be like an island capital city.
Mr TOLLNER: There are plenty of them to our north. You cannot say it is new technology; it has been done in other parts of the world. I do not immediately go into meltdown and paralysis when someone tells me they have an idea, unlike some people in this House who see it as their calling and a great opportunity to create some ructions in our community. They try to get a bit of community action going and whip up a bit of opposition to something which has not started.
It is like the Power and Water debate. We talk about structural separation. They say, ‘While they are talking about it, we will talk about their plans to privatise it. We know what they are up to. It does not matter if they deny it or say it is not on the drawing book, we know because we are smarter than everybody else in this world and we can whip up some hysteria around it.’ That is the way you operate in opposition, and you did the same in government. It is rather shameful. It is farcical and comical; we all get a laugh from watching you lefties run around with self-righteous outrage, but what is alarming – and getting serious now – is the message you send to people with ideas. That is alarming and kills off opportunity. It is what kills development, innovation and enterprise. You guys do not care about any of those.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I was not planning to talk on this tonight, but I will. After I heard we would have a nuclear waste dump on the island I thought I had better say something. I think that is what the Treasurer was saying.
I will not support this motion, but I do not support an island either; I do not think it is a good idea. Someone else does, so I support their option to have it considered. If someone wants an island they should come to the Daly at various times of the year; we could sell them multiple islands. In the Dry Season my property is one island, during the Wet Season it becomes ten so there is potential. A barramundi shaped island is the sort I would recommend there.
One reason I will not support this motion is because it criticises the minister for allowing these people with ideas to go forward. I cannot see why it cannot be tested. The people who have campaigned against it are entitled to their opinion and are voicing their concerns, the same as I have said I do not support it. These people must be able to progress this option. They must find out whether this south Dubai barramundi shaped island could be built. Once that is done, they need to look at the environmental impact and the storm surge it could possibly affect. The member for Johnston was making suggestions, but all of those steps must be gone through. The member for Port Darwin has already said there are probably a thousand steps they must go through. They now know they will have to go through my step on this side. That is one, and I do not know the opinion of other members on this side.
As far as I can remember, whether we agree or disagree with the island has not been discussed at a party wing, but I do not agree with it. I agree these people can have ideas and there is a process to go through. The fact we issued a Crown lease for five years enables this person to test the idea for feasibility. If it is feasible, they will go to the next step. If it is not feasible, perhaps the Treasurer will offer them some other land. I will leave the mango farm on the table for them.
I wanted to place on the record that I will not support the motion in its current form. It is a criticism of the minister and the process, and I do not see a problem with what the minister is allowing or the process. Thank you.
Mr STYLES (Transport): Madam Speaker, I will add to this debate and tell my story.
I arrived in the Northern Territory on 17 May 1981. I came here because the Territory was a great place; I had travelled to the Territory on a couple of occasions and saw the spirit of the people. It was entrepreneurial and ‘go get them’. We are here to generate all sorts of things. I saw people work hard on my various trips, and saw that ‘can do’ spirit.
I arrived with a wife and three children to join the police force, and I had a great time in that role for 27 years prior to being elected member for Sanderson. When you are a young bloke coming here you have your whole life in front of you and you think, ‘Gee, what a fantastic place. It is a great place to raise kids and for kids to play.’ There is bush around, and I know a number of people on the other side of the House remember some of that old Darwin.
I remember it being a town of about 65 000 people; I understand we are now double that figure and growing rapidly. When you drive to 53 Knuckey Street – it used to be a well-known boarding house – it now has a multistorey building on it. On the corner of Searcy Street where the TIO building is there once were houses. I look at the DoubleTree, which when they built it was the Beaufort Hotel. I watched that grow; I watched them close part of McLaughlin Street and pull down the old community hall and build a magnificent new hotel.
I do not recall the humungous outcry when we had to pull down the old hall. I did not hear the outcry when we built Marrakai apartments, one of the first multistorey buildings in town.
The Mitchell building was here where Parliament House sits. It had government offices. The old Supreme Court building was next door where that grassed area is. Across the road was the old Mitchell Street police station where NT House is now; I recall going to work there. I recently saw an old photograph of Mitchell Street when it used to come all the way through to Government House. Those buildings were demolished, new ones were built, and the city regenerated. Not only did the city regenerate, it grew. I remember going to the old workers’ club on Cavenagh Street. They pulled it down and built a new building.
When you travel on a journey of life you see so many things. My kids were all educated and went to university here. They have a future; if you stop development, they do not. I ask people like the member for Nightcliff, who I know has a couple of young children, if we stop everything and say, ‘No we will not do that’, what will her children do for a living? If you keep saying, ‘We don’t like that. We don’t know exactly what it is, but we don’t like it’, that is a sad way to look at things.
I recall the debates about Cullen Bay. I listened to them; they were on TV, radio, in the newspapers and I followed them carefully. People were saying the sky would fall in. ‘It is terrible, the ecological cycle of Darwin Harbour will be destroyed, a range of things will happen. It will affect sandbars, sandbanks, the whole thing is terrible.’ I wonder where those people are now. I recall when they started building a group of six people were the final remnants of the detractors of Cullen Bay. Most people in this House have had relatives and friends come to the Territory who had a fantastic time at Cullen Bay. It is an enjoyable and pleasant experience to sit on the boardwalk, feed the fish, watch boats come and go and watch people living in the Territory, in a city and on a marina. It is alive. It was one of the first things to seriously change the face of Darwin.
These are developments, but to have these developments people must plan and conduct some investigations. They have to take risks and spend money. Government did not spend money at Cullen Bay, private industry built it. This is what happens. I hear the same argument now from members of the opposition that I heard from people about Cullen Bay. I remember the debate in this House on Arafura Harbour. I remember former Chief Minister, Paul Henderson, saying, ‘No, we cannot have this’.
A degree of fairness needs to happen for people wanting to develop. If someone said, ‘We want to build a magnificent thing smack bang in the middle of Knuckey Street’, people might put up a proposal which goes to the Development Consent Authority. It might say, ‘We will not have this. This is ridiculous and does not fit within our guidelines.’
That brings me to the point: what does a development consent authority do? Before it makes a decision, it gets information. Someone has to spend some money, have a range of things done and talk to architects, engineers and geotechnical people. Sometimes they have to do some drilling if they want to build a 50-storey building. They have to find out what the rock formation is. There is a lot of work to do and a lot of jobs are created doing that. They spend their hard-earned money. Sometimes, some of them have to get overdrafts, put their homes and their assets up to borrow money simply to do feasibility studies. Once the feasibility study is done, they have to go to the Development Consent Authority and get it through.
The Development Consent Authority is a group of people who scrutinise what is going on. They might say no, they might say yes, but they gather the information. We have an opposition wanting to make a decision based on no knowledge; it is simply, ‘No, we can’t have that’. I know they had 150 people at a public meeting. I was not there, but they tell me 150 were. What about other people?
I go back to the debate on Cullen Bay because I was here when it was occurring. It was the same thing – people jumping up and down saying, ‘This is terrible, the sky will fall in’. You have to allow people to have a go in the interest of fairness. Developers are employers that put everything on the line every day. Some of them make it and have some pretty good assets. I talk to a lot of developers on a regular basis because they come to me in relation to various aspects of my portfolio wanting to put ideas up. I do not believe it is right to cut them off at the knees before an idea is put up. You have to give people the idea they can dream.
Most people will tell you great things often start as a dream. No one walks in with a set of plans under their arm that just fell from the sky. Everything starts as a dream, and the dreamers of this world generate jobs for people. Many people do not want to dream or put everything on the line; they want a nice safe job. Who creates those nice safe jobs? It is the developers, employers and people prepared to have a go.
If you told someone wanting to build a paint factory we do not like paint and would not allow it I suggest the members opposite would say, ‘That’s not a bad idea, let’s look at it.’ If they want to build a paint factory on the foreshore or on Knuckey Street I would be the first to say, ‘Let’s look at it’. If it has some fantastic environmental stuff that will not affect anyone, maybe they could build it. Maybe they want to build a 50-storey paint factory on the old Woolworths site, but we need to look at that and we should not prevent people from dreaming. If they go to the Development Consent Authority and it says no they have had their turn.
It is so important to give people their turn because if you stifle entrepreneurs you stifle job creation. It does not do any of us in this House any good to stifle jobs, irrespective of what people believe or do not believe in relation to what is happening. It is about jobs for our kids.
I have three adult children who need jobs. I have grandchildren, and when they grow up they will want a job too. If we stifle development and send a message to people locally, nationally and internationally that if you come to the Territory with a dream we will cut you off at the knees before you wake, that is not fair.
I recall living on Aralia Street, Nightcliff, in the member for Nightcliff’s area. I lived at two addresses in Nightcliff, one on Nightcliff Road – in fact, I lived next to the former Speaker, Jane Aagaard – great neighbours. In the time I was at Aralia Street – I spent 10 years there – I saw a lot of development. The place I lived in when I first came to Darwin had a Nissan hut on it. I recall driving down Aralia Street as a young police officer many years ago – I remember that Nissan hut – they built a set of units on it. That is where I lived for 10 years, in a nice unit on Aralia Street. The old BP service station on one corner is now a block of units. There was a lovely old home there that was pretty dilapidated. Mrs Johnson, who lived on the corner of Aralia Street and Nightcliff Road, sold her house and they built a nice big block of units. She got a brand new unit out of that and loved it. I spoke to her over the back fence on many occasions. I was keeping an eye on her because she was an older lady, and a lovely Nightcliff resident ...
Ms Lawrie: Is this your Chief Minister speech? You are losing votes.
Mr STYLES: You have to laugh at them. I remember when I was in opposition they used to say we were a rabble. They are twice the rabble we were accused of being.
Aralia Street, along the foreshore of Casuarina Drive – I wonder if the member for Nightcliff would say, ‘We should just bowl all those units over? Let us just get rid of them. We do not like them. Let us plant some nice trees and grass there.’ I do not know exactly where the member for Nightcliff lives in her electorate, but let us look at her yard. A few years ago there was some nice bush in her yard and someone bulldozed the trees and ripped up all the magnificent grasses growing there. They probably killed a few birds in the process and displaced some birds’ nests and things, all terrible stuff. They go home to their nice house in Nightcliff and say, ‘I have a nice home here’. What about other people who would like a nice home? What about the people who work hard and would like to invest in something? That is about investing in jobs. I know a lot of builders and subcontractors are union people. I wonder what your union mates would think if you said, ‘Let’s kill all the jobs’.
Some of the developers who speak to me about a range of things, such as roads and infrastructure, are concerned. They want to make sure they have plenty of work. We are providing that. If you put these people in charge of the show they are likely to say, ‘We are the ALP, we are in charge. We don’t like that so we will can it. We don’t like this either, we will can it.’ That is communism, because you are not giving everyone in the community a fair go. Give them a fair go to put their proposal to the Development Consent Authority. It may be that when they have done all the geotechnical work it shows it is a good idea but will not suit the subterranean rock formation. It is important we give them the opportunity.
The people who are proposing this have a huge workforce; they employ a lot of people. Many people go home every Friday with a pay packet because these people are trying to get developments off the ground and create work. If you say, ‘No, we won’t have that one, we won’t have this one’, where do you start and where do you finish? If we do not have this one over here – ‘Sorry, guys and ladies, you do not have a job. Go home and tell your kids they can’t go to the movies. In fact, you will be eating bread and water for a couple of days until you get paid again or go to Centrelink.’ People are killing developments before they get off the ground and a proposal has been put forward.
I go back to Arafura Harbour. It does not matter what I think, it does not matter what the opposition thinks – well, it should not. People who have an idea and a plan should be able to develop it, go to public consultation and look at it.
I recall looking at the Arafura Harbour display in the old Chinese buildings on Cavenagh Street. It was fascinating. It was interesting because the night it opened a number of journalists from the NT News were there. They had the opening and there were probably 100 people in the building. They had their displays up, and there was wine for some of the people. It was interesting because a number of media people there had no idea what they were reporting on. They had, for instance, circular drawings of what Melbourne looked like 150 years ago. It was about a tenth of the size, maybe less. What was there? Bush, lots of big trees, all sorts of fantastic stuff. Someone had bulldozed a massive area around Melbourne.
If you went there now, and Melbourne was 10% the size, and you said, ‘Right, I am bulldozing all these trees and we will build a city called Melbourne’, people would think you were nuts. It happened over a period of time, and that is the way things develop. They evolve over a period of time, as all our capital cities have. Go over to Nhulunbuy – what happened to Nhulunbuy? About 40 years ago someone decided we would have a mine. They would bulldoze all the trees, people would build houses on the beach and what did they do? Everywhere in Australia has seen development.
I do not know if these people are proposing we do not look at ideas for any new development. I am quite surprised and wonder what their plan is. We agree that we can develop Darwin. They can build a big INPEX plant and have a great time, but do not want anything to do with an island. People ask if this will affect the tide or if it will affect – these questions should be asked by the Development Consent Authority. I am sure if someone is serious about putting up a plan for an island, be it there or anywhere, they have a plan. I was in Singapore recently …
Mrs LAMBLEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Mr Vowles: Come on, chief!
Mr STYLES: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Where do they find this entertainment? When you fly in to Singapore and see what is happening there – there are walls around the place and it looks like a fence. They are reclaiming land. Singapore is reclaiming land down to a depth of about 120 feet. It can go deeper, but that is where their technology is at the moment – 120 feet deep. If you look at Dave’s pool scoop, it is 7 m. One hundred and twenty feet is about 40 m and Singapore is filling it up with sand and creating a bigger island. They can do it in Singapore so what is the problem with an island here?
Singapore has some very good technology and I am sure the people who want to get this through – if you spend a lot of money to do a feasibility study you will do a good job. If you find after the feasibility study it is not a viable option, so be it. On our side, we believe it is the right of every Territorian to say they have an idea and have the freedom to develop it. You are not allowing people to have an equal say. I do not know some of the people who turned up; they might want to build units on their block in Nightcliff. There are big blocks in Nightcliff and perhaps they want to knock their house down. Should we stop that? ‘I don’t like that. In that part of Nightcliff we should have big blocks.’
What if they want to subdivide it? When you look at modern city design, infill is happening all over the world. It is convenient, people get better services. If you want to build houses you only have to go to Perth to see that. It is the longest city in the world now – 165 km long. It is not very wide but it is long. It is a bit like a runway, not wide but very long. From one end of the metropolitan area to the other is 65 km. That is an enormous city.
My brother in-law moved to town a couple of years ago. He came here on long service leave, stayed with us and saw the light. He said, ‘Gee, the Territory is a great place’. He lived in Waikiki, which is near Rockingham, south of Perth and used to drive to work. The Kwinana Freeway is two lanes south and two lanes north and there is 165 km of it. When you get north of Perth it is called the Mitchell Freeway, and is chock-a-block full of cars. He said, ‘I come to Darwin and drive out to Northlakes’ – where I live – ‘and there are three lanes coming home, which is magnificent, and the traffic is nothing compared to Perth’.
People in Perth have a different set of problems. It is spread all over the place, either side of the city centre, and travelling takes an enormous amount of time. We hear of issues in Sydney, where in places they keep building out and out. In Sydney they are now building multiple storey units in the city. Look around the world at the technology employed for these buildings and their design features. They have six-star energy ratings. They are using thermo glass to reduce air conditioning costs. I recently heard of a building in Darwin using modern technology to cut down its energy costs. We are building stuff in the cities.
What happens when people want to build an island close to the city? They should be able to. There are challenges with some of the issues the member for Nightcliff raised.
We are in the process of revamping the bus network. You talked about lots of cars, but we have identified that. Because the CLP has a plan, we are doing something about it ...
Mr Higgins: Could buses go to the island?
Mr STYLES: They could go to the island. We could have a fast ferry or we could build a big bridge there. We could do a lot of things. I am sure the people proposing this will come up with some great ideas about what they can and cannot do, and what is feasible and what is not.
It will be an interesting revamp of the public transport system, both here and in Alice Springs. Jarrett Walker is a world-renowned expert on timetabling, routes and all those issues. I had a briefing from him the other day, and it is looking fantastic. It is different and interesting. When you look at where Darwin city and the greater Darwin area are going, we need to look at public transport.
In the upcoming budget there will be an announcement on money to be spent on cycle paths to connect various places in the city. We are looking at all the things which will make travelling in Darwin easier. There will be fewer cars on the road.
Again, we go back to the fact these people need to come up with proposals. I am sure there are members opposite who understand when you have these developments you have to come up with a range of things. There are some things happening around the greater Darwin area where traffic flow comes into the development application. If a new building changes traffic flow it needs to be part of a submission. These are things the Development Consent Authority and the Department of Transport look at. If it impacts on roads they need permission to join aspects into roads. A whole range of things have to happen.
I do not know what members opposite and the member for Nightcliff think. Do they think it goes to the Development Consent Authority, and someone says, ‘I have a great idea. I would like to build an island in Nightcliff. What do you reckon?’ The Development Consent Authority says, ‘That sounds like a good idea. Yes, build an island.’
I hope that is not the simplistic view you have because there are many hurdles. What is happening at the moment, with an investigation into feasibility, is just the beginning. There are numerous hurdles a developer would have to go through for a project that size. They put a lot of work into the Arafura Harbour proposal. What happened? Before they were given the opportunity to legally do what they could – apply and submit plans – the former Chief Minister cut them off at the knees and said, ‘No, we will not be supporting that’.
It is a kick in the guts for developers when you are that blunt and say, ‘We do not care what anyone says, we won’t do that because we don’t like it. We don’t have all the facts on the proposal in front of us, but we aren’t doing it.’ When in opposition we questioned the government on that and wanted an answer. It was, ‘We just don’t like it’. That is anti-development, because if you do not like this one what happens tomorrow when you do not like that one, that other one over there or the one following? If people who generate wealth are not paying payroll tax or GST our income declines and we do not have the money to spend on the things we would like to ensure are looked after. People who generate wealth enable us to spend money in our community and generate jobs and social services we require as part of government.
Mums and dads, grandmas, kids, being able to look after your dog or cat and being able to feed them are things every family in the Northern Territory wants. If we stifle development these people want to create we are doing every Territorian a disservice.
Time does not permit me to finish the three pages of notes I have. I would love to have the time to talk further, but I am only about a quarter of the way through. It is so important everyone has a level playing field when looking at development for the good of the Northern Territory.
I want my children to have a fair go at getting a job here as well as everyone else’s kids, and I want generations to come to enjoy the benefits of a great economy. Thank you.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Health): Madam Speaker, I am against the motion put forward by the member for Nightcliff.
The motion is an objection to the concept of an island being created off the Nightcliff coast. After listening to my colleague, the member for Sanderson, I felt compelled to join in this important debate and there are many critical points yet to be made.
People should do what they feel they need to in objecting or not objecting to this development. The beauty of our democracy in Australia is we are free to do whatever we want. If we do not agree with something, we can, by all means, protest at the front of Parliament House, collect signatures, create a petition and do whatever we need to exercise our right to object. Without hesitation, I support people exercising that right. Tonight, we have seen a group of residents from the Nightcliff area exercising their right to object and say, ‘No, we do not agree with this’, and putting it to the parliament of the Northern Territory. I respect those people for coming in this evening and I respect the member for Nightcliff for bringing this motion to our attention.
However, there is another side to the story, and numerous speakers from the government have debated what that is. My contribution will be an extension of what you have already heard. Although it is the right of people to protest against anything in our society they do not agree with, it is also important for them to collect the information and be across all the facts. The facts do not seem to be reflected very clearly in the motion put to us tonight.
The Treasurer put forward that the government has allowed, to this point, a business of the Northern Territory to run with an idea to start exploring a concept of how they might develop an island off the coast of Nightcliff. At the moment it is only that, but the first step in the development concept has raised all sorts of fears and concerns for the people of Nightcliff – some people, not all who reside in the area. Some people will think it is a good thing. You do not hear from them because they are not feeling disaffected in any way. We are hearing from people who do not agree with it and this is understandable.
When this type of planning idea come to the public’s attention, it is normal for there to be a reaction. These developments mean some people’s lives will be changed in a profound and significant way. On the surface it may not seem relevant or significant to other people, but for them it is extremely important. It is offensive, worrying and causes an immense emotional reaction. The member for Johnston said how, as a child, he spent time on the mudflats collecting shells and crustaceans. He described how he has enjoyed the pristine environment of that part of the world around Nightcliff, as did the member for Nightcliff.
People have very personal connections to this part of the environment. I get it, and I am sure other people in this Chamber do too. We all have a special place in the world, one which may be a spiritual home or a place we love to spend time in and amongst. Any threat to that space is deeply personal. It has happened to me – the feeling that my peace and space on Earth where I feel wonderful may be threatened. Once you get to middle age like me, you are lucky to get through life without having experienced a threat to your patch. The people of Nightcliff have had this experience. They have heard about the Halikos island development, or the concept of a development and the exploration of ideas around the concept, and have had an immediate physical and emotional reaction to what is a shock, a threat. It is a normal human reaction, fight or flight.
The immediate reaction is one of shock, anger, almost like grief – I have been there myself and have watched other people go through it. They immediately want to fight this threat to their piece of paradise. In many ways it is a grief reaction. I have seen people go through the process from start to finish; you become very depressed at different points because you feel you have no control over what is happening around you. Some people go through a denial phase of, ‘It won’t be that bad, it might not happen’.
Sometimes these things do not come to fruition. Sometimes these proposals and ideas never happen, as we have heard from various speakers on this side of the House tonight. Sometimes it never gets past the concept or ideological stage. If it comes to fruition some people will fight the whole way, and these things can go on for many years and take a big role in peoples’ lives. Some people will be defined by these causes, but I do not want to pre-empt what will happen in this space too much because this is a concept. It may never happen and may not be a good idea. It may be a bad, irrational, economically and financially unviable idea and people may not want to live on an island at that location.
It may not stack up for many reasons, but I know that experience. One of my favourite movies is Muriel’s Wedding. One of the lines in Muriel’s Wedding is – Bill Heslop, Muriel’s father, is an alderman on the Porpoise Spit local council and his slogan is ‘You can’t stop progress’. I watch that movie time and time again, and always laugh at Bill and his pathetic antics. He used to chant, ‘You can’t stop progress’. You can, and that is what we have seen tonight. A group of local residents have attempted to stop what some might call progress. From this side of the room we see progress as an integral part of the survival of the Northern Territory.
Without progress, this place would grind to a halt. We are so heavily dependent on government funding for everything we do, every activity we undertake, whether it is sport, BASSINTHEGRASS, horse racing or local festivals. Most of them are very heavily funded and supported by government. Our health system is essentially all government. Everything we do, our survival in the Northern Territory, is dependent on government funding. Stimulating the private sector is critical because government funding cannot last forever. It is inevitable the welfare tap will one day, as it has to some extent already, slowly come to a grinding halt. There will always be some sort of government assistance, but never to this level in the future.
We must look at sustainable ways of keeping the Northern Territory going and it is about progress, development, thinking outside the square and taking risks. We are committed to encouraging companies like the Halikos Group to put these outrageous or different proposals on the table, to let us look at them, think outside the square and explore what is possible in the Northern Territory.
One thing we did not see under the former government was exercise of imaginative processes and allowing people to think outside the square. We did not see that under Labor. It was all fairly straightforward and routine because it was hemmed in by its politics; Labor is a victim of the compromises it has made over the last decade or so, particularly with the Greens. They are hand in hand. Labor and the Greens are lovers, and that has been a fairly productive relationship up until the last few years. It has meant Labor has been able to keep government across the country.
It will suffocate it, and this is probably a good example of a hangover from that era. For most of the country the Labor Party is over, as is its connection with the Greens and the environmental groups. That is not to say we dismiss environmental concerns and some of the principles held by Green groups, but the party affiliation with the Greens has soured. This sort of example typifies how the Greens have managed to suffocate the Labor Party in recent times, and how Labor has chosen to separate from the Greens because they are against progress at all costs. The Greens will fight anything, as my colleagues have said, that damages a few crustaceans; anything that sets a fish or a prawn on a different course is the end of the world. We know this is not the case. We have a responsibility to pave a prosperous and full life for future Territorians. We embrace progress; we do not want to stifle progress in any way, particularly by concerns that are not based on anything factual. We have to follow a rational line when it comes to development proposals. We cannot afford to let emotions get in the way of what could potentially be a positive development in the Northern Territory.
As I said, we do not know where this development is going or whether it will be a good or bad thing. I have heard the Chief Minister describe this development in the past – it is different. We are excited by what it might mean, what it might look like and how it might take that whole part of the Darwin foreshore into a new era of contemporary design and architecture. Look at what happened at Cullen Bay years ago. Who would have imagined that development in that part of Darwin years ago? There was enormous resistance to that project, enormous concern about environmental issues and how it would impact on existing residents. There was a lot of push back. Now, years later, we all see Cullen Bay as a regular part of life in Darwin. It is a plush, upmarket part of Darwin we enjoy living in, visiting or enjoying the facilities at different times. No one looks at Cullen Bay and sees it as a terrible blight in Darwin; it is not seen in that light.
We must take people with us on these journeys. We cannot plant these things on people and say, ‘Get over it and get on with it’. It takes a process of consultation, which is what the member for Nightcliff was talking about earlier. People have to be brought along with it. The fact that people have marched in here today and objected to the beginning phase of what may or may not be a substantial project in Darwin says to me we need to continue talking to local people and continue to consult. We need to continue making sure all stakeholders – the member for Nightcliff, the environmental groups, all the people who have already objected to it – are taken along on the ride. These people might be the ones who benefit most from something as special and exciting as Halikos island. These people’s land values could more than likely go through the roof even more. This is the benefit to the community. When you are fixated on the negatives you cannot see the positives and beyond how it will affect what you have known and what you think will be in the future.
Most of us have gone through something similar to this in our lives. If you have not, I can almost guarantee you will. Approximately 12 years ago, a couple of years after my husband and I bought a property outside Alice Springs, two major housing developments were declared. We could potentially have found ourselves surrounded by houses in the middle of suburbia. We are typical rural residents, and there are a few represented in the Chamber. We thought that was, literally, the end of the world when, in quick succession, these two housing developments were announced. One of the housing developments would have meant thousands of cars travelling past the front of our property every day, so I know how these people feel.
We had an adverse reaction to those proposals and I am glad, even after 10 years, nothing has happened. It does not always end badly. I do not accept the premise of the motion put forward by the member for Nightcliff. There is lots of potential in this early development proposal put forward by Halikos. I urge the people of Nightcliff to be patient, to gather more information, and we promise to consult more.
Debate adjourned.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
I put on the record a telephone call recently made to my office by a gentleman expressing his appreciation to Victims of Crime NT. It is an organisation supported by the Northern Territory government, and this will continue.
The gentleman, David John Pickett, expressed his appreciation for the support provided to him by Victims of Crime NT after he was robbed. He is in his 70s, is diabetic and has had cancer. He travelled from Western Australia, where he lived in a remote area, to Tennant Creek to bury his wife about a week ago. Whilst in a Tennant Creek hotel he was robbed and attacked by a juvenile who went to court and was given a custodial sentence. Mr Pickett received only half of the stolen money back, as the cash was located on the offender. Meanwhile, Mr Pickett’s motor vehicle and caravan were parked at Renner Springs on a property, but because he was robbed he had no money to get his vehicles back. Due to his unfortunate circumstances, police told Mr Pickett about Victims of Crime NT services.
Victims of Crime NT arranged for Mr Pickett to travel to Darwin for a court case and provided him accommodation at Frogshollow in the CBD. He was also advised about the age pension in the Northern Territory. Mr Pickett called to commend the Victims of Crime NT program as he received great support and believes it is an essential service for victims of crime. He was very grateful there was a service to assist him following his ordeal and while suffering from illness and injuries.
Mr Pickett believes there is nothing similar to this service on offer in Western Australia. Victims of crime are able to access these services and it has had an increase of funding through the Sentenced to a Job program. Prior to Sentenced to a Job, the Department of Correctional Services provided a modest contribution to Victims of Crime NT, funding about $6000 annually through art sales and the Behind the Wire exhibition.
This began to rise when the employment scheme began, and last month a staggering $14 746 was sent to the organisation for the December quarter alone. In the first year funding jumped from $22 585 in the last two quarters alone, and has already reached $23 424. Mr Campbell, manager of Victims of Crime NT, described the result as a fantastic contribution and he was delighted at the growth of the program in such a short time.
I believe the funding will be placed in a donations account where it can be drawn on in times of need. This may include travel and accommodation costs for victims to attend court hearings and medical appointments. I thank manager, Mike Campbell for his fantastic and dedicated work.
I also congratulate the inmates of the Northern Territory participating in an accelerated literacy and numeracy program to give them the best chance of a crime-free life once released from the corrections system. Since the beginning of this year, 98 inmates have enrolled in the QuickSmart learning program, and I acknowledge the former government for enabling the corrections system to take this program on.
The QuickSmart program is designed to provide a basic education relevant to the future needs of inmates. We do not need PhDs, just functional literacy. Since coming to government in August 2012, 9841 lessons have been provided for the direct benefit of the many illiterate inmates in the corrections system. Inmates who are unable to read and write – many of who are Indigenous – are given a chance to receive a basic education which increases the likelihood of them gaining paid employment, something we are on the record for guiding people in to.
Both the literacy and numeracy courses on offer are targeted and relevant to inmates’ interests, so the skills they learn can be transferred into the real world. For example, a person working in prison industries will learn the appropriate literacy and numeracy for a tradesperson. Inmates who excel in the QuickSmart program are also eligible to become a mentor or tutor. There are currently 11 inmates filling this role in Darwin and Alice Springs.
Education is the foundation for a better future and makes a person more attractive to an employer, should they be accepted into the government’s Sentenced to a Job program. A prisoner in the Northern Territory should be working and developing their skills, not sitting in a cell twiddling their thumbs. Work is a major key to reducing recidivism and diverting people away from offending behaviour. I have espoused the virtues of work as a form of correction, self-discovery and development of dignity on many occasions. I have seen nothing, in my experience as Corrections minister, to suggest the presumptions I have had impelling this policy development have been incorrect.
I am proud of the Northern Territory government’s achievements in the last 18 months and look forward to continuing the roll-out of important programs for the people of the Northern Territory. This is so offenders coming through the system have the best chance possible of not returning to it.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I will speak about some events that finished yesterday in front of the parliament with the presentation of some vehicles and medals.
Bushfires NT staff and volunteers make a valuable contribution to the safety and protection of rural, regional and remote communities from fire. Two of those units are in my electorate; one is Milne and the other Livingstone. They are two of many.
Yesterday the minister presented the Milne Volunteer Bushfire Brigade with a $73 000 medium attack unit and the Livingstone Volunteer Bushfire Brigade with a $60 000 grassfire unit.
I helped in the presentation of four service medals to members of the Milne brigade. For background information, it has 70 registered volunteers. If people do not know where the Milne brigade is, it is centred on an area known as Bynoe Haven. It is located on the southern side of Bynoe Harbour and is midway between the Cox Peninsula and Dundee.
Not to forget Livingstone, it has 25 registered volunteers and is on the side of the Stuart Highway between the Cox Peninsula turnoff and Acacia – Livingstone Road next to the reserve.
The main thing I will speak about tonight is the four people who received medals. I was at Milne about two weeks ago with my wife for an evening where we spoke about these four people who had done 10 years’ service. However, the bushfires representative had locked up the medals and could not get to them on the weekend so we had to present them yesterday.
The first member was Roscoe Orman. Roscoe has been a member of the brigade since 2001, and as an active firefighter he held the position of first lieutenant. Unfortunately, due to ill health he could not continue as a firefighter. He stepped down as first lieutenant in 2003. However, he has continued his strong support of the Milne brigade as a continuous active member, regularly attending brigade meetings and functions, donating items of use to the brigade over the years and assisting with fundraising.
The second person was Vicki Stokes. Vicki has been a member of the brigade since December 2003 after completing a Firefighter One course. She has been an active firefighter, assisting predominately with fire reduction burns. She has been a very active contributor to fundraising efforts, participating on stalls at the Freds Pass Show, which will restart this year. The members for Nelson and Goyder will be happy with that. She has also helped with many sausage sizzles at Harvey Norman and Bunnings. Since 2011 she has been the brigade treasurer and has built on the professional financial management and reporting developed by Vic Czernezkyj. This year she introduced a cost coding system which made the reporting and audit processes even more transparent and efficient. Her financial management has been exemplary and her reporting is very clear, detailed and transparent, probably leading to the success of that unit having 70 volunteers.
Kath Phelan has been a member of the brigade since December 2003. She completed a firefighter course and has assisted predominantly with fire reduction burns ever since. She has also been an active fund raiser at sausage sizzles at Harvey Norman and Bunnings, and will be assisting at the Freds Pass Show. Kathryn has been the brigade’s public officer since December 2010. She has been meticulous about keeping members informed of their statutory obligations, is keen to ensure high standards and to see meetings are well run, allowing all members to be heard with courtesy and respect.
The last person is someone people on this side know quite well, Gary Swanson. Gary has been a member of the brigade since December 2003, and the secretary since October 2004. Since then, he has been elected unopposed every year. After completing the Firefighter One course he has been an active firefighter, assisting predominately with fire reduction burns. During that period he has also been very active and won 16 grants totalling $130 000 for the brigade and has personally contributed significantly to the brigade’s built infrastructure. He has been innovative and energetic in pursuing initiatives to benefit the Milne brigade and Bynoe Haven community in general. I put on the record my support for volunteers of all fields and persuasions, and congratulate those four people on the receipt of their 10-year service medals. Thank you.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I will talk about Greek Independence Day, which was yesterday, 25 March; what a great day it was. On that day in 1821, Greece took the first steps to securing its own future. The Greek people rose up to reclaim their heritage as citizens of a sovereign nation. Yesterday, on the 193rd anniversary of Greece’s independence, we commemorated that struggle to restore democracy to its birthplace. Democracy was a gift Greece gave to the world and from ancient times in Athens to here in Darwin, democracy is a common thread we all share. The Greeks brought forth the world’s first democracy and kindled a philosophical tradition that would stand the test of time. Over two millennia later, the Greek people rose up to reclaim their heritage as citizens of a sovereign nation. The Greek war of independence lasted from 1821 to 1832, with the Greeks supported by the great powers of Britain, France and Russia.
Yesterday, on the 193rd anniversary of Greece’s independence, we commemorated its struggle to restore democracy to its birthplace, renew the bonds that bring many countries in the free world together and to celebrate the Hellenic ideals that run like a thread through so many countries, and here in the Northern Territory, particularly Darwin. The proud traditions that tie Greeks together and honour all those who trace their lineage to the Hellenic republic are still worth celebrating.
A couple of interesting facts: Darwin has one of the largest per capita Greek populations of any city in the world, with one tenth of the population being of Greek heritage. Mr John Nicolakis AM was made a member of the Order of Australia for significant service to the Australian Greek community of the Northern Territory. On Sunday, I commemorated, along with the Deputy Chief Minister and members of the Greek community, the war of independence which Greeks fought and ultimately prevailed in. This is a significant celebration for Greek people all over the world with large parades in many cities, including New York and London.
Greece and its people have made a significant contribution to the prosperity of not only the Northern Territory, but the world as the cradle of democracy. Without democracy, economic development does not seem to occur, and with democracy comes a better standard of living not only for us, but for our children and those who come after. One of the great things about living in Darwin – we all know about the Greek Glenti, a festival held each year to celebrate all that it is Greek. One fact I love to share with friends and relatives when they visit is over three tonnes of octopus is required for the Glenti. I spoke about this last year; it is interesting to recall that at the first Glenti they had about 100 kg of octopus. They had it in the same place they have it now, with a bunch of those nice blue tarps you get at Kmart, a few poles and a bit of string, a couple of barbecues and half 44 gallon drums with some timber in them. They had Greek beer, lots of octopus, a bit of souvlaki, some baklava and lots of other yummy food. I cannot pronounce the Greek version of the vanilla slice.
It is a fabulous festival coming up in June. I encourage everyone in this House to visit this two-day event, starting on Friday into Saturday with a big finale on Sunday. You see all the Greeks there on Monday for the clean-up. It is a fabulous event. If anyone in this House has not been you should go to see what the Greeks do for our community. It is interesting because it is voluntary labour on the stalls from all the Greek footy clubs, the Greek school and the various Greek organisations. They volunteer their labour to raise money.
They pick a worthy recipient charity each year and donate all money raised to that charity. They raise well in excess of $100 000 from the event, which goes to some very worthy charities and very grateful people who benefit from the goodwill of the Greek community. The people of Darwin patronise that event.
The Northern Territory owes a great deal to the Greek community. They assimilate into the community, as I have said on numerous occasions. I made a speech at the Greek school on Saturday. The school runs on Saturday mornings and I was able to watch a performance by students. Many Greek kids go there to learn language skills, culture, their history and what it is to have Greek lineage. It is quite interesting because there are many mixed marriages these days, and you see people from every walk of life at the Greek school learning about Greek culture.
It was a pleasure to address the young people. In March 1821, the Greeks fought for democracy and freedom. Many battles have been fought around the world over time immemorial in the interest of freedom. Freedom is a very fragile state. Without strong communities, cultural links and a strong culture, freedom can easily slip away. If we become complacent and do not teach our children the values of a community and there is nothing to fight for – be it an economy or values – that is when freedom can slip through our fingers.
We all know the Greeks and many others have fought for freedom and it is an inspiration to us all, including those young people learning about their culture and the values of what a free community stands for. They were there singing, dancing, putting on performances and being very proud of what they do every Saturday. They are all fluent in Australian Greek. From some of the faces there, I am sure these young people are fluent in a couple of other languages as well.
On Saturday afternoon the Greek Honorary Consul-General, Mr John Anictomatis AO, hosted a function at Manoli’s. For those who may not know, it is a Greek taverna in Smith Street. It is a fine Greek establishment where they serve good Greek wines, beer – a lot of Australian stuff too – and a lot of Greek cuisine. A large number of people gathered to celebrate the event that occurred on 25 March 1821 and the 193rd anniversary. It was a pleasure to support that event. The Deputy Chief Minister and I were there to congratulate the Greeks and their forebears on the fine job they did in standing up for and protecting the free peoples of the world.
On Sunday we were at the Greek Orthodox Church in Cavenagh Street. Those who have been around Darwin for a while know it is renowned for its Easter celebration. I am looking around this room and I see the member for Nelson …
Mr Wood: Their fireworks.
Mr STYLES: The stand and the fireworks. These days I do not know whether they are using half sticks of gelignite to celebrate Easter, but they certainly have a few fireworks to celebrate Greek Easter.
We were there to lay wreaths in memory of those who fought and died, those who fought and were injured and all Greeks since those days who have fought and died in wars in the fight for freedom.
It was a pleasure to be at those events and share in celebrating the great contribution the world and Northern Territory Greek communities have made. Thank you.
Mrs PRICE (Stuart): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will speak about my recent trip to attend the 58th Commission on the Status of Women held in New York.
I was honoured to attend on behalf of the Northern Territory and be part of the Australian government delegation with people like Senator Hon Michaelia Cash, the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women; Australian Ambassador for Women and Girls, Natasha Stott Despoja AM; and Liz Broderick, Australia’s Sex Discrimination Commissioner.
I attended over 15 sessions during the week ranging from the impact of violence against women on economies, the importance of unpaid care in our economy and society, the various legislative local, state and international frameworks addressing violence and the importance of education in breaking the cycle of violence and poverty.
While I was there I also held and attended a number of bilateral and multilateral meetings. I met the Australian Ambassador to the UN, Mr Gary Quinlan, and his deputy, who hosted a reception for the large contingent of Aussies at the CSW 58.
It was great to meet a range of Aussie women who all shared a passion to advance the issues of Australian women at the CSW 58. They came from government and NGOs across Australia. Talking of ambassadors, I also had the honour of meeting with US Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues, Hon Catherine Russell. Ambassador Russell had the pleasure of attending Minister Cash’s launch of the Australian Women in Public Service Project. The Australian government is committed to the WPSP 50 by 50 goal of increasing the number of women in decision-making positions in the public service and on boards to 50% by 2050.
I will look at how the Northern Territory can get on board, taking into account the number of programs we already run for women in the Northern Territory. I will continue to lobby and persuade my Cabinet colleagues to ensure gender equality is a continued strong focus of this government.
One of the highlights – it was interesting I had to go to New York to achieve this – was the meeting I had with Minister Cash, Ambassador Stott Despoja and Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Liz Broderick. We spoke about having a stronger focus on what we can do across government to prevent violence, support women and children who have been victims of violence and sexual assault, and also look at mental health issues in the bush.
One of the outcomes was the Northern Territory will host a planning day to construct a framework complementing the second action plan to start changing the DNA of Aboriginal culture, where violence has become accepted because people hide behind culture as an excuse. We also agreed to attend a meeting of the APY homelands women’s group.
I also had the pleasure of attending a bilateral meeting with the Hon Jo Goodhew, New Zealand Minister of Women’s Affairs, about ways we could share information and ideas about women’s issues. The issues we talked about included development, economic pathways and violence prevention programs, especially in Indigenous communities.
Minister Goodhew and I also talked about better ways to track and monitor women’s issues through gender specific data. This is something I look forward to investigating with my Northern Territory colleagues.
Continuing on with my bilateral meetings, I had the pleasure of meeting briefly with Lord Vaea, the Minister for Internal Affairs in Tonga. We talked about common issues with Indigenous communities and agreed to look at ways we can open a dialogue between the NT and Tonga to see how we can help each other on women’s issues given we share so many in common.
It was an honour to be invited to speak by the Swedish and Sri Lankan governments, and be part of a panel on preventing violence against girls and boys. I spoke about my experiences and how governments can work together to prevent violence, and address and heal those who are subject to it. Other members of the panel included the Sri Lankan ambassador to the UN, a women’s member, a young Mexican girl and a girl from Malawi, who shared their experiences of violence. It was an interesting outcome, with the panel agreeing discrimination against young people can be a form of violence, especially regarding restricted access to education and information on, for example, sexual health. The panel also agreed with me that education is the vaccine for the 21st century and we need to push for more targeted education as a key to removing violence, and not just education in the classroom. As a society, we are all responsible for educating our young people about violence and appropriate behaviours.
I also met with Sri Lankan Ambassador, Dr Palitha Kohona, who invited the Northern Territory to participate in a world youth congress later this year in Sri Lanka. I will speak to my colleague, the Minister for Young Territorians, about what the Northern Territory can do.
What were the outcomes for the Northern Territory? The Northern Territory needs to participate on the global scene, to see who does what and learn from what they do well and what they do not. We need to explore how we address this to discourage violence from prevailing in our communities. We need not think we have all the answers. Preventing violence against women and children cannot be done by a Google search. Meeting and speaking with experts and learning from their experiences cannot be downloaded from the Internet.
Access to relevant NGO programs and seeing what private investment is available to run programs in our communities is also of great benefit. I spoke with a number of NGOs which are keen to assist in the Northern Territory, stop the normalisation of violence in families and work together with other jurisdictions and countries to identify what works and what does not; recognise and quantify how Aboriginal women do more unpaid work – caring was mentioned – than anywhere in the world, and continue to explore improving access for Aboriginal women to equal opportunities for work and training.
Young Aboriginal women admire what we do for them. How can we better use role models, and the role social media plays? Look to develop pilot programs in targeted communities to roll-out as model programs across the Territory and continue to explore how we can deal sensitively with teenage pregnancies in communities. What can we do better to educate and equip those young mothers?
I thank the Chief Minister for this opportunity, and look forward to embracing and putting together the things I learnt and new connections I have made to get better outcomes for Territory women.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will briefly comment on the good work of the Koolpinyah volunteer fire brigade. Last week I spoke of the good work of the Elizabeth Valley volunteer fire brigade, which is associated with the Bushfire Council NT. For those who are not aware, the NT fire service has a number of volunteer fire brigades, of which Koolpinyah is one. Outside a particular part of the rural area it falls under the responsibility of the Bushfire Council NT, which is mostly in your electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker. It had its AGM on Sunday, which I attended – I have done so for a couple of years – and it has a wonderful complex set up on Pioneer Road, on the corner as you go into the golf club. It was looking impeccable. The brigade has done a lot of work over the last four or five years I have known it. There is still a bit more work to do, but it is definitely a great facility.
This past year was a bit quieter than the previous one, with 74 emergency response calls compared to 121 in the previous year. Emergency and volunteer fire brigade people do a lot more than just attend fires, which I do not think a lot of people are aware of. They also attend vehicle accidents on the roads and attend to vehicle fires wherever they may be. They do attend some structural fires, in association with the NT fire service. For the year, total volunteer hours of this group were 1679, which is extraordinary. A big chunk of that is expended on what they call community service, like inspections of properties before they issue a fire permit.
They do hazard reduction burns, fundraise for their brigade and also take part in – well-known in the rural area in particular – the Santa Run which is a lot of time and effort where not only the Koolpinyah volunteer brigade but Humpty Doo as well, on different weekends, do a Santa Run around the rural area; they even put up signs saying ‘Santa Stops Here’. They give bags, drinks and treats to all the children who come out. I think the Humpty Doo people gave out about 600 to 700 bags, with Koolpinyah doing something similar. It is an extraordinary effort. They do it every year and it is much appreciated by people in the rural area.
They also spend a lot of time on administration and maintenance, which includes crew changeovers, plant and equipment checks, vehicle service and repairs, maintenance of the building and grounds, attendance at brigade meetings and general administration. They must also keep their training and skills up to date, and over the year they spent 470 hours in training and skills maintenance.
There are new members of the brigade. Like any volunteer organisation it is continually looking for new members and new people. David Richardson came to join the brigade, as well as Jo and Jenny Van Loenhout. I know their skills, knowledge and enthusiasm will be invaluable over the coming year.
Throughout the year one of the main fundraising activities of this volunteer fire brigade is selling meat trays at the Humpty Doo pub every Friday night. Beth Stacey has been doing that for 10 years. She and her team continue to give up their personal time on Friday nights to run the meat trays at the pub and I think the most they have sold is six trays in 14 minutes, which is extraordinary. They have a lot of fun and people queue up to buy tickets; some of them get quite upset when the meat trays sell out and they have not had an opportunity to buy tickets. That is how popular they are. They are an institution there and thanks to the hotel for letting them run it.
The fundraising work the volunteer fire brigades do involves giving to charities, people and organisations in need. Over the last year, they gave $500 to Josie, the little girl who had serious eye problems and diseases and needed interstate treatment. They gave $250 to Camp Quality, and $250 to the Girl Guides at Humpty Doo after the group lost the premises it used for weekly meetings. They also contributed $250 to the aged pensioners Christmas party and $250 to both the Christmas combined toy appeal and CareFlight. As volunteers, they are raising money and giving to other people.
The brigade and I also want to thank the Coolalinga district banks because they provide sponsorship to the value of $1500 for the Santa Run, which makes that happen. I know the Coolalinga district banks and Lucia English also give $1500 to the Humpty Doo volunteer fire brigade for it to do its Santa Run.
They also have people who volunteer time, services and goods. One of those people is Peter Anderson of Anderson Constructions in Howard Springs for the shade structure project …
Mr Wood: And the BMX track.
Ms PURICK: The BMX track too, thank you member for Nelson. Peter has donated plant, labour, fabrication and concrete for the shade structure and picked up and delivered the outside concrete tables – there are two brand new tables – with the crane truck and did not charge anyone. The shade is not quite up yet, but I know it will not be too far away.
The brigade has had a great, busy year and gives an enormous amount of time at weekends. There is always someone on call over the weekends pretty much throughout the year, not just during the Dry Season when there are a lot of grass fires.
In closing, I acknowledge some of the volunteers associated with this brigade. Lou Cowan – Robert is his real name but everyone knows him as Lou – is the captain. Thank you to Elaine Cowan, James Skinner, Allan Kassman, Zack Van Loenhout, Warwick Brown, Cameron Hardy, Erin McCormack, David Richardson, Jenny Van Loenhout and Jo Van Loenhout. Associate members are Graham Stacey, who has been the treasurer for many years – he is a lovely man – Beth Stacey, the secretary …
Mr Wood: They are the best trifles in the world.
Ms PURICK: Beth Stacey’s, Graham’s or both?
Mr Wood: Beth does them well.
Ms PURICK: Beth makes them, and they have a lot of food when you go to their AGMs. Beth sells the meat trays at the Humpty Doo pub. Those two are real trojans for that brigade, and it would not be a brigade without them. There is also Megan Baker.
Thank you to everyone for giving your time so generously so others in our community can be safe. It is sometimes the volunteer people who are first at accident scenes on the road because they are closest and the NT fire service, police and ambulance back them up. Thank you Koolpinyah volunteer fire brigade for your work last year. I wish members’ the best for this coming year.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I pay tribute to a beautiful young man. The hockey community of the Top End is grieving, and it will gather in numbers on Friday to attend a funeral. I speak on behalf of my hockey club, the East Darwin Storm Hockey Club, and will talk about the comments my hockey club committee put around to players and club members today. I will speak the words of my club’s committee now:
Brad’s beautiful young life was tragically taken in a car accident as he was coming back from doing what he loved. He was a classic Territory lad and loved his fishing.
Our love and support go to this family. The hockey community is rallying around them. Brad will never be forgotten. He has left an indelible mark on our hockey community because he was such a bright, beautiful, generous, giving and talented young player. My deepest condolences go to the family and friends.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I will talk about something I am sure the Minister for Health will be interested in. Some time ago a claim was made by Nova Peris, a senator for the Northern Territory, about the increase in hospital admissions. There was also an ABC Fact Check report in relation to that, which said it was not exactly accurate.
Statistics are statistics. A long time ago I worked with statistics, and you can do a lot of things with them. It depends where you put your argument. With the BDR, a lot of statistics have been released. I have said time and time again that if you wanted to make a real comment on whether the BDR was working, it needed to run for at least three years before you could say it had an effect.
I read a little more from the ABC website which related to statements made. It is worth reading this. It does not necessarily say it is good. In some places it says it did not have an effect, but I will read it in because it has a balanced approach to statistics:
I do not know if I can table this document, but it shows the five hospitals. Alice Springs has an enormous spike. Even though the others went up, that spike must have certainly affected the overall increase in alcohol-related emergency presentations.
I seek leave to table the document.
Leave granted.
Mr WOOD: I continue:
This is the verdict:
This is the important line we should note:
These statistics are based on alcohol-related emergency presentations. There will be other people who say, anecdotally – one of the supermarket owners in Fannie Bay said when the Banned Drinker Register was in there were fewer people humbugging. Those sorts of figures will not necessarily turn up in the alcohol-related emergency presentations.
On the other side of the ledger, in going through the ABC website there was a policeman – I do not know whether he was an ex-policeman – who used to work in Tennant Creek who said it did not make any difference.
My argument is not so much about the Banned Drinker Register, it is about the statistics and how one draws conclusions from statistics. Alcohol is a complex subject; the issues we are dealing with are very complex. You have to be careful to not only make sure there is enough time for a real analysis of the issues, but to look at the stats and see if they mean what you think. Were there other causes, what did the stats reflect and where in the Northern Territory did this happen?
Was it different in Darwin than in Alice Springs? Did Alice Springs cause the spike? I do not know, but sometimes statistics need a lot more analysis. I say, while the minister is here, I am happy the government is reviewing mandatory alcohol rehabilitation orders as that needs to happen. My concern is they have not been in for very long. Again, six or seven months, perhaps a little longer, is a very short time. I am interested to know whether particular people are being tracked.
I raise the issue – it might sound a bit funny – of claims that Aboriginal people were being employed to work on SIHIP housing. Yes, that was Mr Smith, and the same person was still working 12 months later. In the case of mandatory alcohol rehabilitation, was Mr or Mrs X – have they gone back to drinking alcohol? Has anyone tracked those people to find out if there have been changes in their lives? We need statistics, but we need statistics that have some teeth and have been developed over an adequate period of time to get a genuine trend and find out if there have been changes.
In the case of people who have gone through mandatory alcohol rehabilitation, for someone to say, ‘Yes, it has had an effect’ or, ‘No, it has not’ – there are other affects that may not be easy for people to judge. I have always said that sometimes mandatory alcohol rehabilitation gives the public some peace as well as trying to give a person a new chance in life.
It will be good to see if the department is tracking people to see if there have been some changes. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I will highlight the plight of a particularly brave young woman. I refer to Ms Isabelle Ruiz, a 19-year old woman who suffers from a rare medical condition called Atypical Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome, or AHUS for short.
Ms Ruiz’ grandmother, Mrs Mary Meldrum, resides in Central Australia and it is through her family in the Territory I have been made aware of her situation.
The condition primarily affects Ms Ruiz’ kidney function, causing abnormal clots to form in small blood vessels in the kidneys. These clots can cause serious medical problems if they restrict or block blood flow. This terrible condition is not age specific; it can occur at any age. The disease is life-threatening; however, there is hope in the form of a drug called Soliris. Without this drug there is more than a 65% chance that patients suffering from this disease will die. Patients require treatment via dialysis.
If treatment is unavailable or unreachable they develop permanent kidney damage within one year of diagnosis. Unfortunately for people with this condition, like Isabelle, the drug Soliris is not yet available through the Life Saving Drugs Programme.
The Life Saving Drugs Programme is an Australian government initiative that provides subsidised access to those eligible for expensive yet lifesaving medication. Submissions on behalf of sufferers of AHUS have been made to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. The patient support group of Australia has urged the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee to recommend federal Health minister Peter Dutton include Soliris in the Life Saving Drugs Programme for sufferers of AHUS.
Without the support of that program, patients are left to foot what is truly a prohibitive bill. It is estimated that treatment for Isabelle would come at a cost of $600 000 per year, putting it out of reach for her and her family.
Most Australian families would find it impossible to find $600 000 a year to pay for treatments. I think that equates to around $24 000 per fortnight per treatment.
Before a drug is made available under the Life Saving Drugs Programme, it must be accepted by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee as clinically effective. Soliris has been available for patients suffering another very rare life threatening disease of the blood, so advocates hope Soliris will receive favourable consideration for use by patients suffering from AHUS.
This month the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee will meet to consider whether the drug fits the stringent criteria of the Life Saving Drugs Programme. In anticipation, the patient support group of Australia has been campaigning for a favourable outcome and has collected many signatures in support.
More than 22 000 Australians have pledged their support on this petition, with just under 1000 of those signatures coming from my hometown of Alice Springs. Alice Springs is a tightknit community and one in which there is a strong sense of community and helping each other when it is required. Last Friday, 21 March, the Alice Springs community turned out in droves at a fundraiser for Isabelle. Over 150 people attended the event at the Alice Springs Golf Club and raised an incredible $30 000 on that night.
I would like to acknowledge and thank all those who donated to the event and to those who attended. A special thanks to Annie M, Annie P, Marilyn, Mary, Shirley, Andrea and Neil for their fantastic efforts in organising the event. Mary was in the thick of the action, and she has not lost the power of her voice.
In closing, I encourage the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee to look upon this application favourably, and I look forward to hearing of a successful outcome in Canberra. My heart goes out to Ms Ruiz, her family and friends and I join many in the Alice Springs community in wishing not only for a favourable bureaucratic outcome in Canberra, but a quality of life for this amazing young Australian and fellow sufferers. Thank you.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
MOTION
Appoint Select Committee on Action to Prevent Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder
Appoint Select Committee on Action to Prevent Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder
Mr ELFERINK (Children and Families): Madam Speaker, I move that:
1. a Select Committee on Action to Prevent Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder be appointed
2. the committee shall inquire into and report on:
- (a) the prevalence in the Northern Territory of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, otherwise known as FASD
(b) the nature of the injuries and the effects of FASD on its sufferers, and
(c) actions the government can take to protect unborn children from FASD
I believe there is an intended amendment from the floor of the House through some negotiating last night. We will take that amendment on board.
3. the committee’s membership shall comprise three government members, two opposition members and one Independent member
4. the committee may elect a deputy Chair of the committee who may act as Chair when the Chair is absent from the meeting or there is no Chair of the committee
5. a quorum of the committee shall be three members of the committee
6. the committee is to report in the October sittings
7. the provisions of this resolution, insofar that they are inconsistent with standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.
I support this motion and understand from my conversations with members opposite last night that, with an amendment, this motion will be supported and the government will accept the amendment. To make sure the bipartisan spirit of this committee is maintained, rather than bring on the amendment myself, it is important members opposite be allowed to offer the amendment and have it introduced accordingly on the floor of this House so they too have ownership of this very important motion.
It is with some trepidation I walk into this place, because it is a question which will engender and enliven a spirited debate. When I started discussing this matter in the public domain not so long ago it enlivened and engendered a debate which is important to have.
I have made certain observations and comments about possibilities, but will not stray into it any further because I do not wish to presume or suggest what the results of the committee findings might be. This is a committee of discovery, a committee which will look at areas from my world perspective of child protection issues, but will also stray into health issues, as it unavoidably must.
Consequently, I turn to the problems FASD represents for our community. Foetal alcohol spectrum disorder is well documented in other jurisdictions. Canada has done enormous work on how it has become manifest in its jurisdiction. I believe Nigel Scullion also spent some time there – I could stand corrected on this – looking at this issue.
Alcohol is a problem in the Northern Territory and we have had many wide-ranging debates looking at the history of alcohol consumption and its effects, but what is less certain is the prevalence of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. It would be nave of me to suggest it is not there, and not for one second do I suggest that. But, we need to know, as a community, how prevalent this manifestation of human conduct is. If the manifestation is profound we need to know and plan for it into the future.
The second element of this motion is the nature of the injuries and effects of FASD on its sufferers. I understand a number of deleterious outcomes become manifest under the FASD banner. I believe we need, as a jurisdiction, to understand not only the prevalence of the problem but the nature of the problem.
Clause 2(c), which will be amended, talks about what the government response should be. I will not dwell on this too much, because I know it will be amended on the floor of the House and, as a consequence, we should continue but not limit the committee from looking at the response government might choose to take, whatever that response is.
I am mindful, as the minister responsible for child protection, that it is incumbent upon me to protect children in the community. Should I, or my department, neglect that duty it would quickly be an issue spoken about in the most passionate and hot terms in this House. I am excruciatingly mindful of the expectation upon me that once a child is physiologically independent of its mother, there is a high level of expectation that the child, if neglected or abused, receive an appropriate response from government.
Government is not a good parent and I suspect government will never become a good parent, therefore I am always anxious to ensure the links between parents and their children are maintained as far as possible.
This is not a debate about the rights and choices of women. If the choice is exercised in the affirmative and a woman decides to have a child, I have one question for the committee to turn its mind to: as the minister responsible for child protection, what are the boundaries of my duties to children we know will be born? I hope this will come back into this House so the public’s expectation towards children who will be born is described, and it is something I would like a great deal of public input on. For this reason, the select committee is being established.
Select committees look into a topic; this is neither a standing nor sessional committee, it is simply a select committee to look at this issue. The intent is to have the select committee report back to this House in the October sittings on its discoveries and findings in the community. I know many people will want to have input into this debate and I welcome them all. The only thing I plead for from this House – and I believe this House will hear my plea, but also from the public in general – is we approach this issue with sobriety and temperance, with measured language and careful, cautious consideration about the issues we will discuss.
This issue will drive people’s emotions and for that reason, all the more, we should be careful to concentrate on the issue itself, and to make certain we keep those emotional responses within the domain of what is appropriate.
This is not intended by me or the Northern Territory government, and I do not think it will be intended by this House, to be divisive in nature. It is a genuine exercise in discovery, understanding and learning about the extent of this problem in the Northern Territory, and what the appropriate response would be on behalf of the Northern Territory government, and perhaps the input of the federal government as well.
I suspect we will discover this to be a substantial problem in our community. If it is the present government, and governments in the future, must understand the prevalence and depth of the problem in our community.
I do not want to dedicate a huge amount of time to speaking about this motion. The motion is, essentially, self-evident in its intent. Anything I might add to the debate at this point would only have the effect, I suspect, of trying to pre-empt, in one fashion or another, the deliberations of the committee.
As I said at the outset, that is not my intent. Government, Territorians and I want to know the nature and size of the problem in the Northern Territory and what would be appropriate responses.
I welcome input and debate from all members who have an interest in this area, and I look forward to this committee, should the House determine to go down the path of having a select committee. I look forward to this committee’s report back to this House, and ultimately, to the government of the Northern Territory.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, firstly, the opposition supports the establishment of the Select Committee on Action to Prevent Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder. Today we gave genuine bipartisan support in this Chamber. We all see FASD is an issue, and we all want to use our roles in parliament to drive change for the better and help reduce FASD across the Territory.
I appreciate this committee will look into how deep the issue is, and that is critical. That way you are best placed to put some solutions in place to tackle the issue.
What we have, through this select committee, is a real opportunity to lead the way with the latest evidence, the latest research, look at the best ways to tackle the issue of FASD and improve education, prevention and treatment.
I understand the member for Port Darwin does not want to pre-empt any findings of the committee, but I need to state the opposition sees FASD as a serious health issue.
We see the best approach coming from a health perspective, not a criminal one. There has been huge debate ignited in the last few weeks at a local and national level, but in this parliament today we are looking at the establishment of a select committee to look at FASD because there is genuine concern and genuine intent by all of us to make change for the better. We see it as an issue across the Territory, so that is an extremely positive thing.
On this select committee, if it goes forward – which is looking extremely likely – me, as shadow Health minister, and the member for Barkly will be nominating for roles. I have been deeply moved in this Chamber, hearing some tragic stories the member for Barkly has shared with regard to his experiences from his time living in the Territory and elsewhere, and seeing the impact of FASD and the tragic consequences that can follow in a person’s life.
We see FASD as a big issue because it impacts a child, its development and affects its adult life. Research says the symptoms and impairment in development and learning go through life. It leads to cognitive disorders, mental health conditions, intellectual impairment, potentially lifelong alcohol and other drug abuse issues, behavioural issues and propensity to impulsiveness and memory problems. These are big issues.
The consequences of growing up with those issues are severe disruption to schooling. As you are trying to gain an education – most or all of us would agree if you do not have a solid education it is very difficult to have a truly fulfilling adult life. If health issues prevent you from obtaining a good, solid education, that will lead to big problems in your life. It is more likely you will need lifelong support and care, and more likely you will end up in the criminal justice system. That is a fact.
We need a greater effort in prevention. There seems to be a lack of awareness and understanding of what FASD is in the Australian community. This work on the select committee can help go a long way in the Territory, but we can also contribute to the national debate. There seems to be a lack of early diagnosis in the area and some under-reporting.
We need to get to the bottom of this issue; find out how prevalent it is today and a forecast for the future. We need to reduce that forecast. This gives us an opportunity to do that. We need to see what support carers and families need, and how we can better integrate support services to help people with FASD.
Most importantly, we need to look at prevention. We need to look at what mechanisms we can put in place to reduce the incidence of FASD. In this work what is important – and what we must always be conscious of – is getting mothers at risk to get help. We need them, and their families, to be part of the solution and everybody working together to reduce the incidence of FASD. It is important, when we look at the issue, that it goes beyond just the mother. It is far broader than just the mother; it is about the family unit.
We have a real opportunity to make some changes and we all want to see changes. The opposition is very supportive of the establishment of this select committee. We have been approached by the Attorney-General with regard to the terms of reference, and we sincerely appreciate the Attorney-General’s offer to look at them and contribute.
We have looked at them and will be putting an amendment to clause 2(c) of the terms of reference. We want to change the way it reads because we feel it will be more holistic, inclusive, and will drive, ultimately, better results from this committee so we can see the changes we want.
We will call for support from the House to amend 2(c) of the terms of reference which, currently reads:
- actions the government can take to protect unborn children from FASD
to: actions the government can take to reduce FASD based on evidence and consultation.
_________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Wanguri, can you pause so I can welcome students. Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of two Year 5/6 classes from Woodroffe Primary School accompanied by Wendy Heironymus and Ashley Gilles. Welcome, and I hope you enjoy your time at Parliament House.
Members: Hear, hear!
_________________
Ms MANISON: I might give some reasoning around why we are moving this amendment and then formally move it, if that is okay. It is important our work to reduce FASD focuses on the welfare and health of the mother and the unborn child. It is inherent and explicit in any debate on FASD that we are dealing with an unborn child, a mother and a family. To explicitly focus on an unborn child misses an opportunity to focus on holistic care and responses. Further, we have genuine concerns that should the terms of reference focus on the unborn child alone, the inquiry will become a lightning rod for the right to life movement, which is neither the intent of the government or the opposition of the Northern Territory.
We see this committee as a genuine opportunity for parliament to drill down and find some real answers to reducing FASD and improving the lives and futures of so many. To do this, it is critical we take an evidence-based approach and consult broadly. There is an opportunity to speak to the experts in the field of FASD as well as people dealing with the issue on a day-to-day basis. We need to talk to the experts, the carers and the affected families.
We look forward to working with the government and the member for Nelson on this select committee. We believe we have a fantastic opportunity to make real change, and there is a real determination on all sides to drive change for the better. I sincerely thank the Attorney-General for an opportunity to comment on the terms of reference. I can see he genuinely wants to drive change and we thank him for that.
Madam Speaker, I move the following amendment: omit clause 2(c) and insert clause 2(c), ‘actions the government can take to reduce FASD based on evidence and consultation’.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I will speak to both the amendment and the original motion.
I will make a statement at the beginning which caught my ear recently. There was an interview on ABC radio the other day, and I will not go into all the issues raised, but one issue the President of the Australian College of Midwives raised – they accused the government of being racist. It was funny listening to the member for Wanguri because she did not mention that, nor did the member for Port Darwin, but the Australian College of Midwives mentioned it.
I was a bit ashamed because I was visiting a school in my area – I will not say which school but we do not have a high Aboriginal population in the rural area; about 9% of people class themselves as Aboriginal – and someone said to me, ‘We have a number of students who suffer from foetal alcohol spectrum disorder’. We have to be very careful here. Once we start putting this into boxes of whether someone is black or white we are heading down the wrong path.
This is about making sure any child, black or white, or any other colour or ethnicity, is born so they grow up to be a healthy person. I want to make that clear because I felt that was someone from down south making a statement which is not helpful in this debate.
I thank the Attorney-General for bringing this matter forward. I am not an expert in this area. I recall on many occasions the previous member for Arafura, Marion Scrymgour, passionately talking about this problem because she had seen it firsthand. As someone who worked in the health area, especially in the Katherine area, she knew firsthand the problems associated with this illness. I am not sure what it is classed as. Is it a syndrome?
Mr Elferink: It is a disorder.
Mr WOOD: Disorder is an unusual word. I am here to learn. I have no doubt we will have different points of view.
Recently the minister has been talking about issues regarding the Children’s Commissioner, and for a long time I have been concerned – in relation to the Children’s Commissioner – about definitions. This will be very important here because we will have to deal with the definition of child.
In the Criminal Code Act a child means a person who is not an adult. If you look in the Children’s Commissioner Act, I think it refers to another act; it tells you to look at the Care and Protection of Children Act, which says child means:
- (a) a person less than 18 years of age; or
(b) a person apparently less than 18 years of age if the person’s age cannot be proved.
This raises some strong and difficult ethical issues we will have to deal with. It will deal with health issues, and the amendment brought forward by the member for Wanguri is important because we are not only dealing with the health of the unborn, but with the health of the mother. The two are naturally interlocked, if you want to call it that. We have to deal on both levels.
We have to deal with the legalities of what we are doing. Can the Children’s Commissioner be given power to deal with this if we do not have a definition of a child? We have the science of what foetal alcohol spectrum disorder is – what causes it, what effects it has – and the science about what a child is, which is where ethics mixes with science.
What is a human life? Some of these matters are difficult to debate. Many personal feelings and the way you are brought up can come into it, but I try to work on what my conscience tells me. These issues need to be debated. I remember a good debate we had with Syd Stirling over some of these issues years ago, and it is one of those opportunities you rarely get in parliament to deal with complex issues.
I see this as being far more important than whether we split up Power and Water. It is important and I will get passionate about it, but it is not as important as what we do with and how we care for the unborn and their mothers; it is something we have to grapple with.
There is no doubt this will be a difficult area. It will cover the causes, because it is no good us looking at the results of abuse of alcohol. I will be asking what we can do to reduce the influence of alcohol in our society, because people do not drink for no reason.
They get themselves to this point for an array of reasons, whether it is poverty, welfare dependency – as the Attorney-General raised on television the other night – or over exposure to alcohol advertising and the influence the alcohol industry has in our society where it is regarded as a core social value. Unfortunately, this core social value can cause problems, one of which we will see when we discuss this issue more fully.
There are many issues we have to deal with. We will also have to deal with – again, the member for Wanguri mentioned it – how other countries or jurisdictions deal with this issue.
The Attorney-General raised the issue that has caused some heat in the debate, but that is not to say he should not have raised it. It is the issue of whether a mother could be prosecuted or restrained from drinking while pregnant. I am not saying I agree or disagree. I would like to look at what happens in other countries. That is an area we will have to discuss pretty thoroughly, because I put it into the realm of other matters the government has brought forward which restrict people. For instance, Alcohol Protection Orders stop people drinking. We already have that, and we have mandatory alcohol rehabilitation centres where people are physically removed from society to stop them drinking.
We can argue whether they are good or bad, but in the discussions we will have in the next few months all those things need to be looked at. Again, the member for Wanguri raised some great points about education and the promotion of a lifestyle where mothers know they have a responsibility to care and nurture their children from the day they are conceived. Education is an area we must look at and compare against other jurisdictions and what their education programs are in relation to this matter.
I must admit, I have only given this thought today because I was thinking of other things on the agenda today as well. There are a fair number of things we must deal with today, but I raise those issues to show this will be a very complex select committee dealing with some very complex issues, varied issues and, probably, many issues. We will have, I imagine, different points of view on our committee and will hear from people with different points of view.
I do not believe we should shy away from those difficult problems. That highlights the importance of parliament and parliament works best, sometimes, when people get together to deal with problems, especially if we are trying to find solutions to make life better for our citizens, whether unborn or born. Using that as our objective should drive us to come up with some answers that will, hopefully, achieve improvements in this area.
I thank the Attorney-General for bringing this important matter forward, and I thank the member for Wanguri for her amendment which makes the original motion broader, especially in relation to both the unborn child and mother.
Mrs PRICE (Community Services): Madam Speaker, I support the Attorney-General’s motion to refer the issue of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder to a select committee.
It is timely for the Northern Territory to start investigating exactly how FASD impacts and affects Territorians. We are all aware in this House there is a health risk associated with alcohol consumption. Some of these health risks can be long lasting, and it is important for this House and the community to recognise that health impacts do not necessarily result from the excessive consumption of alcohol or binge drinking. My brief research into FASD raises the issue that any amount of alcohol can cause harm to an unborn child, and these medical conditions are permanent.
I am keen to hear about some science, as well as some hard data, to give us a clear picture of FASD across the NT. I will be interested in getting answers to questions about the best role of government in addressing FASD. I totally support children having the best life possible, free from any substance abuse or violence. As Minister for Women’s Policy, I have a keen interest in this committee and its findings. I agree with the Attorney-General and the member for Wanguri that this issue is not about the right to choose; it is about making sure all children get the opportunity to live their lives the way they wish and not to be burdened with the mistakes of their parents.
How should we address this issue of FASD which takes away the choice of a child? Is it through prohibition or criminal sanctions? These options raise serious questions for me about exactly how compliance is achieved and what we do with a mother who does not comply. Is it through education? Do governments of all persuasions do enough in this area to warn pregnant women and women who are wishing to fall pregnant about the dangers of FASD and the life sentence they are giving their child? Can we do something like the spina bifida and neural tube defects education campaign? This seems to be a very successful and life-changing campaign.
I hope the committee can look into these types of public education campaigns. Can we engage the NGO sector with this committee and work in partnership with the national organisation for FASD? FASD has a great deal of information and suggestions around it that the committee, hopefully, will examine in its deliberations.
I look forward to participating in this committee in some way, but I urge the committee to take a careful, balanced approach to this. In my view, education is the vaccine of the 21st century, and this is an area in which we can do so much more.
Madam Speaker, I support this motion.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this motion to the House relating to the formation of a Select Committee on Action to Prevent Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder. I thank the Labor Caucus for nominating me to be part of it. It is a privileged position to be able to research and report back to government and parliament on an extremely important issue for the development of the Northern Territory in relation to our children and young people.
I will go through a bit of a chronology I have followed since the announcement, which starts with a media release on 25 March 2014, from Hon John Elferink, Minister for Children and Families. In the second paragraph it says:
- Mr Elferink will tomorrow move a motion in Parliament to establish a Select Committee to examine the nature and extent of FASD which is caused by excessive alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
That is a wide and broad-ranging sweeping statement. This committee is about researching this issue in a Northern Territory context – Northern Territory children and families – and possibly start to lead the nation as a result of this research and government action.
We will start to move immediately from the political approach to a dedicated and directed approach based on good sound empirical research. A committee of inquiry to report is a good way to do business in this parliament. As an elected community member I have skills in certain areas, but I am not an expert in any of those areas. Using a committee of parliament, particularly a select committee, to call in experts and engage the community is a very good way to do business and develop government policy.
My own personal learning around foetal alcohol syndrome and its effects relate to my mother, a triple certificate nursing sister who commenced my learning in this area by taking the glass of champagne out of the hand of the family member announcing their pregnancy at a family celebration. I distinctly remember asking her about those actions – I am going back to the 1960s – and my mother, Nora McCarthy, would explain succinctly why it was not a good idea for the new mum or new dad to celebrate the announcement to the clan with alcohol.
I then started to explore this issue in a professional context. My first teaching appointment was in north western New South Wales in an area with a high Aboriginal population. That area was dealing with contact with non-Indigenous civilisation for well and truly over 150 years, and there were considerable social and cultural issues. The school was the centre point in dealing with a lot of those issues.
I was very fortunate to be professionally developed by a number of teachers of excellence. I remember one in particular, when I was working in a behaviour management unit, and that teacher started my professionalization around FASD. It was quite alarming in identifying anecdotally, through physical characteristics of children, those children in my care who had been affected by alcohol.
I then moved to the Northern Territory, and it was a great move and one into frontier country well and truly, not only in the education pathway I had chosen, but also in this country’s total development. I brought learnings from my background and experience in north western New South Wales. I remember being pleased to see the absence of what I had identified in that north western community and that school cohort, but today I cannot say that is the same case.
I started that journey in Tennant Creek. I had to stay in town for 12 months whilst the infrastructure was being prepared for a school I was recruited to open, and it was probably the best move that ever happened. I was put into an Indigenous transition unit of the then Kargaru Primary School. I was working with great staff, dynamic staff, a lot of Indigenous people and I employed some of the age old methods of teaching. One of those was the classic ‘show and tell’ in the morning to get kids speaking and listening.
I will never forget a female child who was, I would say, about seven years of age – this is in 1980 – who shyly came to the front to share her news with the class. She told us her mother had a baby the night before. I stereotyped it and based it on my knowledge and my family – once again my mother – and created an oral text around celebrating that birth. I said it would be wonderful for the child to visit her mother at the hospital. The reply was, ‘Oh no, the baby was not born in the hospital, the baby was born outside the Tennant Creek Hotel’.
I made some inquiries through the school’s senior staff and some local knowledge to find out if that was true. I was informed it was; the baby’s birth commenced outside the Tennant Creek Hotel. The mother was assisted by an ambulance, eventually the child was delivered and, thankfully, was in the Tennant Creek Hospital with the mother, and mum and baby were both fine. However, to this day I still shudder at the thought of what was happening in the mum’s life and the life of the child in utero and, consequently, after the birth. It highlighted the impact of alcohol misuse, the lack of education and awareness and those devastating impacts of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. It travelled with me and was, once again, at the forefront of my agenda to try to reduce any possible disadvantage to achieving normal child growth and development for all Territory children.
It was not only an Indigenous issue, because I knew of intravenous drug users with families in the western suburbs of Sydney. I knew high risk behaviour and, for some of them, trying to deal with their addictions and go on the methadone program was also extremely high risk, especially around the production and nurturing of their children. It was not a black and white issue for me. It was across the board, relating to our children.
The journey of this parliament will be interesting and I am looking forward to it with the select committee. It was interesting to see the catalyst which, in some respects, created it and the question, ‘Why did the CLP government choose to act now?’ I think it goes to the ABC Lateline story, where the Attorney-General was being interviewed on national media and a comment was made about dozens of intellectually disabled Aboriginal people stuck in prison without conviction. The Attorney-General, in response, said:
- … his government is considering tough new measures that could stop pregnant women from drinking alcohol, including criminal penalties.
The backlash to this became a very strong opposition nationally to the Northern Territory government’s proposal; words around prosecution and incarceration of pregnant drinkers were used, and the media used it as a story which permeated through our continent. This is a space in time we will move on from, and I am looking forward to that. The media will play an important role in the work of this committee, the report to parliament and the government’s policy development because they need to be educated and made aware of this issue. The more focused they are, the better the community will be in its information and awareness.
Back home in the Northern Territory, the Attorney-General then conducted some more media, talked about the issue and started to move on from the original Lateline story into the area we have gone to today. I commend the Attorney-General for getting to this point, but in getting there it also created some good dialogue from experts.
Experts came forward and advised the Northern Territory community and politicians that there are very specific learnings about foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, there are very important interventions and that, essentially, it is best dealt with through a process of embracing the family – both the immediate and extended family – the community, and that process should be underpinned by education and awareness. When we talk about education and awareness and we talk about the family, we definitely talk about the mother, the father, the immediate family, the extended family and the medical and social service support network.
We are no longer talking about the lock them up policy or the lock them up approach; we are talking about a well-referenced, evidence-based approach that will be facilitated through this select committee. We already have some important community groups and individuals on record, and they will hopefully be referenced throughout this committee as the common theme is to oppose any criminalisation of drinking and deal with those causes.
A select committee of parliament represents politicians getting it right, and one of those important stakeholders who made comment was on ABC Darwin radio, on Kate O’Toole’s program on 18 March. That was Professor Elizabeth Elliott, a professor of paediatrics and child health at Westmead children’s hospital, who made comments on the ABC program Q&A, and the discussion that was generated from the Attorney-General’s appearance on the Lateline program. Professor Elliott, in a very brief comment on radio, said that the suggestion put forward by Mr Elferink is a simplistic approach.
She added that it is more important to understand why women are drinking during pregnancy and that assistance should be provided to help pregnant women stop drinking alcohol. She went on to say that although education on foetal alcohol syndrome is a slow process, it is necessary.
She also said that limiting access to alcohol, limiting alcohol advertising and identifying women who have had alcohol issues early, could help avoid foetal alcohol syndrome.
In other words, the professor goes into a number of areas that are important to address in this huge issue, a big, complex problem, a problem of our society and a problem growing within our society. I will be very interested to participate as a member of the committee and learn, through empirical evidence, what is happening and what governments can do to play a role around preventing that.
We need to turn our attention to the experts, and one within our ranks is Adele Gibson. I can immediately refer the Attorney-General and the committee to the innovative and very important work done around foetal alcohol spectrum disorder in Tennant Creek in the Barkly through the Anyinginyi health congress under the project management of Adele Gibson. I will read very quickly from a submission made by Adele Gibson to the committee secretary of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs in Canberra. This was in relation to the inquiry into the harmful use of alcohol in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities:
- To Whom It May Concern,
I write this submission as a private citizen, because the highly-successful Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder project I coordinated in the NT was de-funded by the federal government last year, therefore I am no longer working in the area of FASD. However, I am still in the NT and working in the area of violence reduction, with clear links to the problems of alcohol abuse.
I have extensive knowledge and concerns about Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder, as a carer and as a professional/public health educator. It is my passionate belief that preventing FASD is the single most effective, and the very earliest, intervention possible in the quest to reduce alcohol-related harm in Australia.
FASD impacts upon every aspect of an individual’s life, and upon every aspect of the family and community around them. The financial costs of FASD are astronomical, with the US estimating $2m per person per lifetime (2007 figures, so it is likely to be much more by now).
FASD impacts upon every sector: health, welfare, education, recreation, social relationships, employment, the justice system, the child protection system, and more. While countries like Canada, the US and UK and Europe are developing sophisticated strategies for managing the high rate of FASD sufferers in their justice systems …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move the member be granted an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr McCARTHY: Madam Speaker, I thank the member:
- … and schools, Australia has not even begun to even screen for it: potentially, our schools, welfare systems and prisons are full of people there with cognitive disabilities.
In terms of the justice/corrections systems, this is clearly a human rights violation which is not going to go away by itself. It is not a specifically Indigenous problem, although we see it decimating Indigenous communities because of the oral nature of their cultures, and because of the combination of other socioeconomic pressures in those communities.
Australia remains well behind other developed countries in the world, and our alcohol consumption is arguably one of the highest on the planet. It has been well-established that wherever there is alcohol, there is FASD: wherever there is a lot of alcohol there is a lot of FASD. This is not news to this government, yet still there is a reluctance to embrace the reality and do something substantial to actually change the FASD disaster in this country.
That was followed up by a number of media interviews conducted in Alice Springs. I am pleased to say Adele Gibson moved from Tennant Creek to Alice Springs with her family and is still a Territorian who can contribute to this debate and research among a lot of other Territory, national and internationally recognised experts.
The Anyinginyi health corporation, in Tennant Creek’s FASD project, received further funding from the government. Unfortunately, these funding rounds start and then conclude – there are not enough dollars to continue. But, the Anyinginyi health corporation has chosen to continue it under its own resources. There are some significant projects now that the Tennant Creek and Barkly community has been made aware of.
It is a very powerful experience when you see a group like the Stronger Sisters group or other young Territorians in Tennant Creek featuring in what is a very relevant, exciting and informative education and awareness-based approach to getting the message out. When you have teenagers spreading the word and sharing their learnings on this issue you start to see the real grassroots impact and change.
I welcome the opportunity to participate, the work the committee will do, the learning it will undergo and the opportunity to report back to parliament, and in time we will have an incredible input into government policy that will translate across a number of portfolio areas. As Adele said, this is not just an issue about education or a child’s education; this is about lifelong community involvement, engagement and learning.
In looking at the holistic nature of this challenge we are embarking on, I would once again like to put on the public record somebody who articulates some very serious challenges which relate to the FASD area.
This comes from the Weekend Australian 2 February 2014 and is an article saying the key to Aboriginal health lies in improving conditions from infancy, not in funding cuts. It is by Ernest Hunter, and I will pick up the story where he is talking specifically about the challenges we are faced with in the Aboriginal community:
- While Indigenous developmental, vulnerability and its effects should be cause for alarm, it is not a reason for fatalism. Indeed, the good news is that the scope for intervention and prevention is enormous and, broadly, we know what needs to be achieved: equity in pregnancy and early childhood health and social outcomes. Unfortunately, we do not know how to get there – although, clearly, it’s not through business as usual. Even if it is achievable it will take generations for the full effects of healthy pregnancies and early childhoods to be reflected in a reduction in the burden of chronic disease from midlife on, particularly in remote Aboriginal communities.
Imagine if somehow the pregnancies of young Indigenous women right now, were no more likely than non-Indigenous pregnancies to be exposed to smoking, alcohol consumption, other drug use, the effects of violence, high levels of maternal stress hormones and inadequate nutrition; if the babies were born to women at no greater risk of prematurity and labour complications who have had access to the same quality of antenatal and birthing services. Don’t stop – imagine if those babies, now as healthy as their peers across Australia – could spend their infancies in safe, nurturing and stimulating environments in which they were nourished and cherished by their parents, no more likely to be exposed to abuse, neglect or removal from their families; if they did not live in overcrowded houses and were protected from the waves of chaos and stress that wash through homes in remote communities. Imagine.
Even if this miracle did occur, service demands will remain unchanged for a long time as the developmental adversity experienced by older relatives works its effects through the population. Indeed the consequences are evident already among their older siblings, let alone those suffering chronic diseases in middle age.
Educational disadvantage has received a lot of media attention, as has foetal alcohol exposure, both of which predispose affected children to a range of additional risks that will follow them through their lives. Lives that in many cases will be cut much shorter.
Madam Speaker, we are embarking on something extremely significant. I also acknowledge the member for Nelson. It is a privilege to be in this House and be part of what can be a defining moment in improving the lives of Territory families.
Debate suspended.
MOTION
Appoint Select Committee on Action to Prevent Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder
Appoint Select Committee on Action to Prevent Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr STYLES (Young Territorians): Madam Speaker, I have listened to contributions from other members in the House and am very impressed with the support from all in relation to what is happening with this issue. I would like to add some of my own experiences and reiterate the importance of looking at this and gaining as much evidence as possible to inform not only ourselves, but also the public.
As someone who worked in the community for many years, I worked with people with foetal alcohol spectrum disorder and saw the tragic circumstances some of them found themselves in through no fault of their own. I looked at a Western Australia report of the Education and Health Standing Committee on Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder: the invisible disability dated September 2012. That body of work, sadly, reiterates things members are talking about in this House.
As a school-based police officer I worked with young people diagnosed with what was then known as foetal alcohol syndrome, although the issue is much broader than that. It is sad to see these young people’s inability to learn, concentrate or participate in what most of us in this House might call a normal life, and this inhibits them gaining a good education and good outcomes in the job market. A lot cannot get jobs. They find themselves in a variety of situations where they are down and out and get involved in a whole range of criminal, immoral or down right wrong issues and lifestyles.
From my previous days and experience in working with people with this problem, I agree with all the things members on both sides of the House have said in this debate. I encourage all those people who listen to these debates and read Hansard to get on board and support this initiative and do whatever they can to bring whatever evidence, stories, solutions and ideas they may have to this committee so we might become better informed and add to the debate on the issue.
Thank you.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I am by no means any expert on this disorder and know it is a problem. I completely agree with the member for Nelson, who said it is not just a problem for Indigenous people. I also heard one of the other members – it might have been the member for Barkly – talking about cigarettes and other drugs. That is of concern to all of us – pregnant women smoking and taking drugs, as well as young people involved in that.
I think back to when my wife was pregnant; I am going back to the 1970s. In those days we drank a lot, and I am not talking about me personally; I am talking about people at that time. We would often drink and drive, and since that time we have all become more aware of the impacts of drugs, alcohol and so forth. It is time this parliament had a close look at it.
The member for Wanguri also raised the issue of not just the unborn child – I think I raised that in our wing meeting – but this disorder will create other problems for us. These people will be adults in years to come, so it is not only looking at a pregnant mother drinking, it is about what to do with people who currently have it.
I know one fellow who I have a lot of time for – one of the nicest people – who lives at Nauiyu. I will not say his name, but he is affected by this. It affects people in different ways. It does not make them aggressive or angry. This fellow probably cannot count the number of fingers on his hands, but he has very acute vision. If you take him up in a plane he can almost spot a pin in a haystack on the ground. Whether this comes out of it I do not know, but I looked at that as a positive. It is something we have to look at – the people who have this disorder, if we want to call it a disorder – as they get older.
I am concerned about this committee – all the committees – and the resources we need to put in. Everyone in this House needs to think about this. The committee people have a high workload and if we give this the proper attention it needs, the people on this side - the people with the purse strings – need to make sure this committee is resourced properly.
I look forward to doing it. I do not understand the problem completely, but it is a problem. I look forward to finding out what it is, and will go into it with a very open mind.
Mr ELFERINK (Children and Families): Madam Speaker, I thank honourable members for referring to me as the Attorney-General through this, but I bring this in with my child protection hat on primarily.
Whilst the Attorney-Generalship strays into this area I suspect it does so remotely and, having listened to other members today, I suggest my Attorney-Generalship will stray into this area in the most remote way, if at all. I will pick up on a few comments made during the course of this debate.
I pick up on the matter raised publicly prior to this debate coming into the House. This was the use of prosecutions to provide forms of restraint on pregnant women.
The only reason I said this during the interview was because I would see it as a means to an end, if it was to be done at all. The means to an end is the nature of restraint one might contemplate, if at all, but it would only be a means to an end and if the commentary is any yardstick to go by, it would be a clumsy way to proceed.
The only reason I do not rule it out at this stage is because I do not want to pre-empt anything the committee might look at but I already suspect, on the basis of what I have heard today, it will be roundly dismissed by committee members on both sides of the argument as well as the Independent, which is fine. It does not bother me in the least that it will be roundly dismissed.
If the committee determines to look at it and dismiss it that is cool; send it away and it never rears its head again. It was only a means to an end. There are other means by which you can reach the same end, if that is what the committee chooses to look at or give government and me advice on.
Whilst the committee will be looking at FASD – a problem in the community, the extent of which is yet to be determined – I do not want it to artificially raise hopes either. This is not the sort of thing which is instantly struck away because a committee has looked into it. Much more must be done than simply looking at the problem for it to go away. One of the things we must be very careful of as politicians on both sides of the House is raising expectations because there are limited capacities, even with the powers of government, to deal with certain issues in our community. We have both, as oppositions and governments in this House, struggled with those social and community type problems we deal with.
Yes, it is an important debate to have. Yes, we must ask the questions, but let us be careful about raising expectations. There is a long way to go, and if the experience of other jurisdictions is any yardstick, it is an extremely long way to go. But we must make a start, and that is essentially what we are arguing for here.
I am happy, at the risk of pre-empting any findings, to almost rule out the idea of a criminal justice response simply because it is apparent from almost everything we have heard that it is a poor fit, and I accept that. That is a reasonable proposition, but it still leaves me with a very important question as the minister for child protection, and this is something I would specifically like the committee to look at.
If the answer is it should be about supporting families – I am not saying it should not be – if the answer is it must be about education – I am not saying it should not be – if the answer is some sort of inclusive process, there will be individuals who will, irrespective of all the education in the world, irrespective of all the other responses in the world, continue to cascade through the system and ignore whatever we are attempting to do on their behalf. If that person is cascading through the system I ask the committee to look at one issue: what should our response be to that person who cascades through the system and ignores all warnings and all attempts at support?
That is the question I am asking. Specifically, the question I would really like the committee to look at is: where does my duty – and this is what the member for Nelson referred to in particular – as minister for child protection start? Yes, I appreciate all the health implications we are talking about: family health; social health; the health of the mother; and the health of the unborn child. Where does my responsibility start? I will closely monitor the committee on this issue, because I will be seeking guidance from the committee on the answer to that very important question.
We, as a community, expect parents to look after kids. We, as a community, appreciate and understand we take children away from their parents when the parent fails to look after them, and we occasionally do that very close to the time of birth for a number of reasons, and there are sound, good reasons to do it. The question we have before us is not a right to life question, but a right to an opportunity. The member for Stuart raised the issue in debate. She talked about the right to an opportunity, and that is essentially what is weighing upon my mind as a member of this House.
What is the right of a child, who will be born, to have opportunity before them? Many people will talk about equality and the need to have equality before the law, but I also believe that, as far as possible, there should be equality of opportunity. If, because of the actions of a mother, there is a diminishing of equality of opportunity for a person who will be born, what is my duty as the minister for child protection at that point?
This, I suspect, is the question the committee will struggle with most deeply because it is the one I have struggled with most deeply. It is quite deliberate that I have started this conversation in the community, because I would like to know what the community thinks about my duty. There will be a variance of opinion, and I have already seen this in the public commentary. The variance in opinion will not only be human rights arguments, but there will be straight up and down economic arguments.
The cost of rearing a person born with FASD – I think the figure used by the member for Barkly was $2m – is a substantial impost and it will, invariably, not be borne by the mother, it will be borne by the community. The community, therefore, has a right to ask, and this is why I ask this question: what is that cost and how does that cost balance off against the rights of the mother carrying the child who has determined to have that child? That is a very important question we should ask ourselves. I listened very carefully to the member for Barkly’s contribution on this issue, and it is something we have to ask. Yes, it is a money question.
The point is, if this problem is as prevalent as some people in this House would have us believe, then $2m per child over 10 children is $20m, and that figure was in 2007 or 2009 …
Mr McCarthy: 2007.
Mr ELFERINK: 2007, so it is already higher. You would assume it is already substantially higher here.
Those are other questions we have to ask ourselves. That is a rights argument, where we have to balance off rights of one person against another. That is the challenge before this committee. The committee will receive, doubtlessly, many submissions talking about education and that this should be done, and there is a medical response over here.
I am not saying for one second you should not hear that evidence, but the committee must also take on the very great, grave and burdensome challenge of asking itself these hard questions and seeking guidance from experts in the field, such as medical experts. There are also other experts who may give evidence to the committee, such as religious figures or whatever. They may be economists who give evidence in relation to this. You may choose to take evidence from people in the Health department who can tally up how much it will cost in today’s dollar terms to look after a child who will suffer from the day they are born until the age of 70. These are questions I hope the committee will look at, because it covers the field.
If we find individuals who ignore all warnings for the sake of pursuing their addiction, how do we deal with them? That has to be looked at. I will welcome all other observations, and I am not dismissing the other observations, but that is a very critical question for the committee to look at. I ask it to look very closely. When it takes evidence, particularly on those issues – I will be keeping an eye on the evidence this committee collects and reading the transcripts. I presume most of it will be transcribed. I will be reading those transcripts very carefully, because I confess it is beyond the capacity of my wisdom to come up with a solution independently. I hope other people turn their minds to these very specific and important questions.
I heard the member for Nelson struggle to describe it as a disorder or whatever. Call it an affliction if you like. An affliction is often something which is done to a person rather than a disability they have suffered as a result of Mother Nature or some other conduct independent of themselves. This is an affliction which, by all measure, is a worrying one for the future of our community.
Those are my issues, particularly as the minister for child protection. At the risk of pre-empting the committee, I can take off my Attorney-General’s hat entirely and look at it as a child protection issue. However, there is also the health aspect that needs to be understood, as well as economic aspects into the future.
I state on the record my thanks to the opposition, the Independent member and everybody who has contributed to this debate. I thank you for starting the debate in the way I had hoped it would be started, with a sense of sobriety, temperance and measured comment.
I say to committee members that I suspect there will be times when you are taking evidence in relation to this important issue when your measured response will be the only measured thing in the room. Hold on to that because, ultimately, it is not about us, it is not about this House, it is about the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory.
I will advise the House of the membership tomorrow, if that suits the opposition.
Motion agreed to.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 73)
(Serial 73)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr TOLLNER (Local Government and Regions): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This bill is another example of how government is continually listening to people and taking action to improve local government. These amendments address various matters which have been raised by stakeholders, LGANT and the councils. I will now run through the main changes this bill will make.
In relation to the notification of council member vacancies, there has been a loophole in the Local Government Act. No time limit was stipulated as to when the CEO of a council must notify the Electoral Commissioner of a council member vacancy to trigger the calling of a by-election. The bill fixes this by providing that council CEOs must notify the Electoral Commissioner as soon as practicable and, in any event, within 10 days of becoming aware of the vacancy.
In relation to voting at council meetings, the act will now make it mandatory for a council member to cast a vote. Previously a council member has been able to avoid voting and thereby not declare their position on an issue. The electorate has a right to know where its elected council members stand on matters that affect them. Further, where there is an equality of vote and the Chair has a casting vote, the Chair must exercise that vote. This will ensure votes are exercised when they should be and clear decisions are made.
This bill makes a number of changes in relation to disciplinary committees. Disciplinary committees hear complaints against council members for breaches of the code of conduct. The code provides for honesty and integrity, appropriate conduct, accountability and respect for confidentiality. It is vital the electorate has confidence in its elected council members and knows members can be held to account if they breach the code of conduct.
Anyone can complain if a council member breaches the code of conduct. It may be a matter so minor or frivolous that the disciplinary committee summarily dismisses the matter. At the other end of the scale, a disciplinary committee has the power to recommend that I, as Minister for Local Government and Regions, dismiss a council member.
The Local Government Act provides for the minister to constitute disciplinary committees by choosing one person from three classes: legal practitioners nominated by the Attorney-General; nominees of LGANT; and people the minister has nominated. There are currently three such committees. Having set committees has meant very little flexibility if a member of the disciplinary committee cannot participate for some reason.
The bill makes a change to the way disciplinary committees are formed. In future, the minister will appoint a pool of eligible disciplinary committee members from the three classes. When there is a complaint the agency will appoint a disciplinary committee to hear a matter by selecting three people, one person from each class from the pool. This will allow maximum flexibility to the hearing of complaints as efficiently as possible. It may be, for example, that a disciplinary committee needs to be formed in a region. Committees will be able to be formed immediately to respond to such a need.
The bill strengthens the powers of a disciplinary committee, providing committees with powers to require people to give evidence. Failure to abide by a lawful requirement of the committee will be an offence with a maximum penalty of 100 penalty units. To indicate the seriousness of a breach of the code of conduct, the maximum penalty has been raised to 120 penalty units.
I have great confidence in the elected members of local government. I know they work hard for the people who elect them. I hope the powers of the disciplinary committee will be rarely, if ever, used, but it is necessary to have such a body with appropriate powers to do what is required of it.
The next change the bill will make is in relation to councils having a caretaker policy. Councils will have to have a caretaker policy to cover the lead-up to a local government general election. This is good practice, just as other levels of government have caretaker policies.
It is a good thing there is portability of long service leave amongst local government bodies. This encourages cross-fertilisation and facilitates movement of staff. There has been a problem, however, in that there was no cut off point by which the benefit of portability, when moving from one local government job to another, had to be claimed. The bill introduces a new duty for a local government employer to ask a new employee, ideally within five days of commencing employment, whether they have been employed by a Northern Territory local government body within the previous three months. If the employee declares they have, the provisions allowing portability are triggered. There is now a time limit and the employee must respond within 28 days if they want to claim this benefit.
Where in the past it was not possible for council members to decrease their allowances once they had been set for the financial year, this bill will allow them to do so. In a case where a council thinks it should revisit the amount members are paid, the amount can be reduced.
Conditional rating is a matter which raises debate from various perspectives. Conditional rating applies to pastoral leases and mining tenements. Apart from the rate capping involved, a big issue for councils has been the cumbersome method in which they have had to apply to rate the conditionally rateable land. If I, as the Minister for Local Government and Regions, do not receive an application from a council by the end of February, that council may not rate conditionally rateable land in the coming financial year. This is not the intent of this government. The intent is councils may make submissions, but at the end of the day, after consulting with the minister for the pastoral sector and the minister for the mining sector, the Minister for Local Government and Regions advises the maximum rate which may be levied.
After the relevant sections commence, councils may make submissions, but they do not have to specifically apply to be able to rate conditionally rateable land. The timing will be brought forward a month so the notice of conditional rates will be made by the minister by the end of April rather than the end of May. This will assist councils in planning and setting their budgets. In order for this to happen in a timely way, any submission councils choose to make must be made by the end of January. If a council makes no submission it will still be able to impose conditional rates as notified by the minister. Further, councils will no longer be restricted by guidelines as to the kind and form of submissions which they can put forward.
Still on the subject of rates and charges, I note the definition of school – as schools are exempt from rates – has been improved so it relates to the definitions in the Education Act. Further, when a council makes its declaration of rates and charges, the council will have to state the purpose of the charge. A requirement has been that councils have various information on their website. However, councils raise the issue there was no indication of how long material had to remain on a website. It was not clear whether information had to remain on a website for eternity. New section 200A of the act will fix this problem. Generally speaking, documents must be on the website while they are current and remain on a council’s website for three years after they are no longer current.
One question which has been asked a number of times in relation to the 2008 act is what a surcharge consists of. A surcharge may be imposed by a council when the agency is satisfied, on the report of a local government inspector, that a council has suffered loss as a result of dishonesty or serious illegality.
The council can impose a surcharge on the person whose dishonest or illegal act gave rise to the loss. This bill explains that a surcharge must not exceed the amount of the loss suffered by the council, together with the amount incurred by the council in recovering the surcharge.
LGANT has been working with councils to help them understand the requirements of the act and the obligations of a council to scrutinise its own affairs.
One way councils do this is by having an audit committee, as stipulated in the Local Government
(Accounting) Regulations. As a result of regulations from a number of quarters, including LGANT and both local government advisory committees, the regulations are being amended so the Chair of an audit committee must not be a member of council or a member of the council’s staff. This will promote transparency in process of self-scrutiny.
Finally, this bill contains a number of amendments to the Schedule to make references to local government areas, councils and local authorities consistent across the Northern Territory statute book.
I commend the bill to honourable members, and I table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
DARWIN RATES AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 72)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr TOLLNER (Local Government and Regions): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This government is working hard to reform local government and get the legislation in order. This bill relates to the rating of the Darwin Rates Act area, which although not in a council area, is an industrial area where rates are levied by the Territory.
The prescribed area contains approximately 260 ratepayers and consists of the East Arm logistic precinct (previously referred to as the Trade Development Zone), part of the East Arm Port area and parts of adjacent areas including Berrimah, Tivendale and Wishart.
Under the act, I, as the Minister for Local Government and Regions, set the rates for the prescribed area. The rates are usually set to align with rates charged for light industrial areas by the City of Darwin or City of Palmerston councils.
As we are putting the local government legislation in order, we are putting this act in order too. This is a very old act, which began as an ordinance in 1971. It is definitely time to bring it into the 21st century.
The best way to deal with this legislation has been to align various provisions with the Local Government Act. The drafting introduces maximum flexibility, modernises many parts of the provisions and repeals provisions that are no longer needed, both in the act and the regulations.
The previous description of the area covered by the act has been translated into a map and is referred to by its compiled plan number. The map reflects the exact area that was previously covered in the description contained in the regulations. While it will be possible to declare additional prescribed areas in the future, the current prescribed area is not being expanded and no new areas are being declared by this legislation.
The name of the act has been confusing because it sounds as if it relates to City of Darwin rates. Of course, rates for the City of Darwin are set by the council under the Local Government Act and do not come under this act.
To clear up the confusion and for practical flexibility, the name of the act is being changed to the Northern Territory Rates Act. As the Darwin Rates Act is outdated and has rarely been given attention, all the flexible ways of rating contained in the Local Government Act have been imported.
There can be different bases of rates, differential rating and flat rating. All of the exemptions under the Local Government Act have been brought in as well.
These amendments also enable me, as the Minister for Local Government and Regions, to set the interest rate for overdue rates. In the current act, interest on overdue rates is called a penalty and is set at 1.5% for each month. It is more practical and more in line with the Local Government Act if the setting of the interest rate occurs at the same time the rates are declared. I intend to set the interest rate at a level comparative to the interest rate set by municipal councils.
The penalty provisions have been modernised and the penalties are now in tune with modern policy on such matters. The regulations have been amended to abolish outdated forms and, as I mentioned previously, replace an almost incomprehensible description with a map reference.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members, and I table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Note Report – Auditor-General’s Report to the Legislative Assembly – February 2014
Note Report – Auditor-General’s Report to the Legislative Assembly – February 2014
Continued from 13 February 2014.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I thank the Auditor-General for his report. I was a member of the Public Accounts Committee for five years, and that work is now being done from our side by the members for Nightcliff and Wanguri. I found the current Auditor-General, Frank McGuiness, during my five years, to be an incredibly professional servant of this Assembly. It was a pleasure working with him. I am not sure how long the current Auditor-General has left of his term, but he has definitely been a very good servant to this Assembly.
The issue of most significance and importance in this report is the section on the use of fuel cards and, in particular, the use of fuel cards by members of this House. There is no mention of members’ names, only vehicle registrations.
Members will be aware I have, in the past, expressed concerns in relation to the fuel bill and use of a fuel card by the member for Arnhem. I believe the relevant vehicle in the Auditor-General’s report on the Department of the Legislative Assembly is car 21. The vehicle is mentioned on several occasions throughout the Auditor-General’s report on pages 97, 98, 101 and 107. Several anomalies and concerns in relation to this vehicle are outlined.
Members are entitled to the use of a taxpayer-funded vehicle, but members are also obliged to account to taxpayers for the appropriate use of the vehicle. Members’ vehicles are available for parliamentary business, electorate business and private use, but there must always be proper accountability, and each member must be individually responsible and accountable.
It would be easy for me to rehash all the concerns I outlined last year in relation to the member for Arnhem’s fuel card. Over a period of considerable time last year we went through a significant number of concerns we had that emerged through the Estimates Committee process. We had concerns about the amount of fuel purchased, where it was purchased and who was using the card.
However, my views and concerns are not the most important. What is important is the member for Arnhem’s account of the use of her card. The member for Arnhem claims she has done nothing wrong. She has an opportunity now, with this debate on the Auditor-General’s report on the floor of parliament, to speak publicly on this issue and explain to this Assembly what happened, and respond to issues raised. The floor of the parliament is open to her to provide a full explanation, and I believe this is a very good opportunity for her that she should take. That is, essentially, all I am saying on the matter today because I believe we are now in the member for Arnhem’s court. We have said what we have said, and this is an opportunity for the member for Arnhem to respond.
I note the Department of the Legislative Assembly accepts the recommendations of the Auditor-General to improve reporting and accountability with respect to fuel cards. We thank the Auditor-General for his report and for the work he has done, and look forward to hearing, hopefully, from the member for Arnhem.
Mrs PRICE (Community Services): Madam Speaker, I speak to the Auditor-General’s February 2014 report tabled in the Assembly. First, I wish to thank the Auditor-General, Mr Frank McGuiness, for the work he does. It is often a thankless task, and I can imagine quite tedious at times dealing with all those figures. I thank you, Frank. I am sure the public appreciates you being the guardian of their funds and making sure we spend that money wisely.
The Auditor-General’s report mentions agencies within my portfolio responsibilities three times.
First is the Nitmiluk Katherine Gorge national park board, which comes under the Parks and Wildlife Commission. I am also the lucky local member for the park. Before I return to Nitmiluk park, I would like to give the House a few statistics about NT Parks and Wildlife. There are 87 parks and reserves managed by the Parks and Wildlife Commission across the Northern Territory. That equates to over 4.4m ha of land and includes 15 national parks and two marine parks, Cobourg Marine Park and Limmen Bight Marine Park.
In the last 12 months, there were nearly three million visitors to our major parks. What I am most proud of is that 32 of our parks are jointly managed with traditional owners. These joint management arrangements provide local jobs and local business opportunities for Aboriginal people. I am hoping to continue increasing that figure with a number of other joint management arrangements being worked on right now. Our parks are internationally famous for their attractions, but also their unique fauna, flora and geological features. Cobourg Peninsula, for example, was designated the world’s first site under the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance.
Turning to Nitmiluk, the board was formed in 1989 under the Nitmiluk (Katherine Gorge) National Park Act. The board is responsible for managing the nearly 300 000 ha national park owned by the Jawoyn Aboriginal people. Most of us are aware that this park has the most amazing features, beautiful sandstone country with deep gorges, broad valleys and numerous significant cultural sites. The deep gorge carved through ancient sandstone by the Katherine River is the central attraction of the park. Other features include local accommodation, a boat ramp and boat tours, camping, canoeing, fishing, helicopter tours, amazing kiosk and visitor centre, picnic area, swimming and world-renowned walking tracks.
The country you walk through is Jawoyn country, which changes from savanna grasslands to rocky escarpment outcrops and rainforest pockets. It is a challenging trail with beautiful swimming holes at every campsite and amazing Jawoyn rock art which can be viewed at the amphitheatre. It is an amazing part of the Northern Territory and one of our most internationally known locations.
As the report notes, the purpose of the board is to manage this fantastic park and provide for the management and control of certain other land. Nitmiluk National Park has been jointly managed by the Jawoyn people and the Northern Territory government since 1989, when the Jawoyn people won their land claim for the area. The park management was heralded as a model for joint management between Aboriginal people and governments across Australia.
The board is comprised of 30 members appointed by the Minister for Parks and Wildlife. Of the 30 members, eight are Aboriginal traditional owners of the park nominated by the Jawoyn Association. The position of board Chair is held by a Jawoyn traditional owner. The board also employs a number of Jawoyn people as rangers.
I am pleased to advise the audit of the financial statements of Nitmiluk Katherine Gorge National Park Board for the year ending 30 June 2012 resulted in an unqualified, independent audit opinion. The report did not identify any material weaknesses in controls, which is Auditor-General speak for, ‘Everything appeared to be okay’.
The report noted park revenue declined from $0.8m for 2010-11 to $0.6m for 2011-12. The revenue received was distributed to both the traditional owners, who received 60%, and the former Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport, NRETAS, which received the remaining 36% on behalf of the NT government. The report found that revenue dropped because of a drop in visitor numbers.
My colleague, the Minister for Tourism, has implemented the fantastic ‘Do the NT’ marketing campaign. As the minister has outlined to the House, ‘Do the NT’ is a new brand strategy for Tourism NT to better sell the Northern Territory and boost holiday visitor numbers. I agree with the minister that we live in one of the most spectacular places on the planet, with unique spiritual, cultural and natural attractions.
To improve visitor numbers and park revenue the Northern Territory government is investing an extra $8m into tourism. This shows the priority this government places on tourism in order to help build a bigger Territory economy and create more jobs. Our new brand position expresses a can-do attitude, which is part of the character Territorians have always embraced.
The Northern Territory government’s new Tourism Vision 2020 strategy aims to deliver $2.2bn in annual visitor spending to the Northern Territory’s economy by 2020. The first phase of the new campaign was rolled out across the east coast of Australia from August to September 2013. I look forward to working with my colleague, the Minister for Tourism, to see how we can better promote this great park to boost visitor numbers again. I also look forward to working with the new Chair of the Jawoyn Association, Lisa Mumbin, to develop more tourism and job opportunities through the board and the park. Jointly, we will continue to investigate ways to attract visitors back to the park and I look forward to seeing a much better outcome in the next financial year.
The next mention in the Auditor-General’s report is of the Cobourg Peninsula Sanctuary and Marine Park board. The Cobourg Peninsula Sanctuary and Marine Park board was formed in 1981 under the Cobourg Peninsula Aboriginal Land, Sanctuary and Marine Park Act. The board consists of eight members appointed by the minister, four of whom shall be members of the group and be appointed on the nomination of the land council. The park includes the entire peninsula, the surrounding waters of the Arafura Sea and Van Diemen Gulf and some of the neighbouring islands. It covers about 4500 km and served within the park areas are a mosaic of: sandy beaches; dunes and associated coastal grasslands; mangroves; rainforest patches; swamps; lagoons; coral reefs; seagrass; seagrass meadows; and rich marine life.
This is an internationally important area as it was the first park in the world to be declared under the Ramsar Convention because of its significant wetlands. The area has an interesting ancient and contemporary history. Archaeologists generally agree Aboriginal people have been living in the area for 40 000 years. Macassan traders visited the area regularly for centuries. In 1838, the early British settlement of Victoria was established at Port Essington and lasted 10 years. Various industries have since developed including pastoral, pearling, timber and tourist industries.
The park lies within the clan estates of the Iwaidja speaking people of the Cobourg Peninsula. The traditional owners are continuing spiritual links with the land and sea. Their ancestors from the creation era, Dreamtime, created the land and all it contains. The park contains cultural landscapes which have been shaped and managed by cultural traditions and translated as: Garig, local language name; Gunak, land; Barlu, deep water. Recreational activities include fishing, walking, camping and four-wheel-driving.
I am pleased to advise the audit of financial statements of the board for the year ending 30 June 2012 resulted in an unqualified independent audit opinion. The report did not identify any material weaknesses in controls, which is Auditor-General speak for, ‘Everything appeared to be okay’. I note the report outlines that revenue dropped by some $10 000 in the 2012-13 financial year; however, payments to traditional owners have increased and operational costs have decreased, which is a great result. This has led to a $25 000 profit in the 2013 year. Well done to the board and the Parks and Wildlife Commission for this result.
Jointly, I will continue to investigate ways to attract visitors back to the park, and I look forward to a much better park revenue outcome in the next financial year.
Another area within my portfolio responsibility which is mentioned in the Auditor-General’s Report is the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority, or AAPA. AAPA is an independent statutory organisation established under the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act. AAPA is responsible for overseeing the protection of Aboriginal sacred sites on land and sea across the whole of Australia’s Northern Territory.
AAPA is based in Darwin, but also has a regional office in Alice Springs. AAPA is governed by a 12-member board consisting mainly of senior male and female Aboriginal custodians from across the Northern Territory nominated by the two land councils.
While AAPA is not often talked about in this House, its role is very important to the Northern Territory. As I said previously, AAPA balances the requirements of the Sacred Sites Act, which are to manage a practical balance between the recognised need to preserve and enhance Aboriginal cultural tradition in relation to certain land in the Territory, and the aspirations of Aboriginal and all other peoples of the Territory for their economic, cultural and social advancement.
The way AAPA does this is through issuing authority certificates which provide legal indemnities for any works carried out in accordance with conditions on the certificate. The authority plays an important part in facilitating infrastructure and development projects in the NT.
In the last 12 months AAPA provided a total of 280 authority certificates across a range of broad project types, including supporting and facilitating road work projects throughout the Northern Territory such as: maintenance and upgrades of numerous highways; supporting and facilitating Power and Water and sewerage projects throughout the Northern Territory; supporting other infrastructure and development projects through the Northern Territory, including development on Aboriginal communities; supporting and facilitating mining and exploration projects throughout the Northern Territory, including projects by WDR Iron Ore Pty Ltd for the Roper Bar iron ore project, Sherwin Iron Ltd and Vista Gold Australia Pty Ltd; and supporting and facilitating tourism-related projects throughout the Northern Territory.
AAPA also deals with requests by the general public for access to records of specific land or sea areas in the Northern Territory.
In 2012-13, the authority responded to 584 requests for information from individuals, companies, land councils, the mining industry, the NT and Commonwealth governments.
Through this service, the public has the opportunity to view a register of authority certificates. Information available includes a list of authority certificates granted or refused for a specified area and a register of sacred sites information on the location and extent of registered sites for a specified area. An abstract of records provides a written abstract and map of all known recorded and registered sites for a specified area.
AAPA is also responsible for the registering of sacred sites. In 2012-13, the authority registered 18 sites across the Territory. For custodians, the site registration process offers strong protection for sacred sites, and for the public this process provides appropriate information about the location and features of the sites. AAPA is not only about sacred sites; it also acts as a Northern Territory government agency to preserve Aboriginal culture.
In December 2012, AAPA handed the Papunya report to the Minister for Arts and Museums. The report investigated the secret and ceremonial nature of the Papunya Boards, a collection of the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory. The report greatly enhanced information about the collection, and will assist MAGNT in its future management of the collection. AAPA plays a vital role in our goal to develop the Territory and, as responsible minister, I want to see AAPA take on a more proactive role in this area.
AAPA is currently progressing over 100 development-related applications for authority certificates. These include a number of major projects such as the proposed Katherine to Gove pipeline, the NBN in Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine, Darwin and Nhulunbuy and the Ord Stage 3 project.
AAPA is also working on developing a protocol with appropriate custodians to allow the issue of authority certificates without consultations. This protocol would see certificates being issued within an agreed set of conditions for identified areas of high development. The successful implementation of the process will deliver significant benefits for users of the authority’s services by reducing time frames for the issuing of sacred site clearance, while still maintaining high standards of sacred site protections.
The authority has begun working towards a process of changes to the Sacred Sites Act. This initiative will improve functional efficiencies in the administration of the act, achieve red tape reductions through improved processes and capacity to transfer site clearances from one entity to another, and provide certainty for custodians and developers.
The AAPA is funded through Northern Territory government payments, as well as revenue obtained through issuing certificates. As part of his functions, the Auditor-General conducted an external compliance audit of AAPA for the 2012-13 financial year. As noted in his report, the audit concentrated on the use of the Treasurer’s Directions, procurement directions and vehicle odometer recording.
The Auditor-General deleted a number of very minor issues with AAPA’s compliance with those directions. The Auditor-General made recommendations to AAPA on how to enhance internal systems in order to comply. The CEO of AAPA has commenced implementing those recommendations to address the very minor matters raised by the Auditor-General.
Once again, thank you Mr Auditor-General for your reports. I look forward to working with my agency to ensure public monies are spent correctly.
Mr STYLES (Transport): Madam Speaker, I will speak about the good work done by a couple of government business divisions in my portfolios. The first is the Construction Division, a government business division that sits within the Department of Infrastructure. The Auditor-General, who I have had the pleasure of knowing for some years now, is very dedicated to what he does. I am quite confident in saying you will not find a better person. You may find some equals, but you will not find a person better at what he does, more committed and professional.
The Auditor-General’s report on the Construction Division for the year ending 30 June 2013 resulted in an unqualified audit opinion which, for those who are reading this, is a very good outcome. The audit did not identify any material weakness in the controls or checks and balances we have in the Construction Division.
The report also indicated the total income for Construction Division charges in 2012-13 decreased by 11.4% compared to the prior year’s income. This is mainly attributed to a reduction in programs. For those who may not understand, the Construction Division, as a government business division, charges a percentage of the overall value of the work it performs as a management fee to project manage the various contracts and issues they have to deal with.
To contain costs, the Construction Division reduced expenditure in employee expenses and the purchase of goods and services by 12.1% compared to the previous year. A number of employees have left, and the Department of Infrastructure has done a great job of moving people into areas to fill voids where they were and to also handle the reduction in income.
The result of the expenditure containment was a realised surplus for 2012-13 of $0.22m, which I might add is an improvement when compared to the previous year’s $0.59m.
The Department of Infrastructure is included in the Treasurer’s annual financial statement as part of the general government sector, which was qualified due to the uncertainty surrounding the valuation of work in progress in relation to SIHIP. The Department of Infrastructure delivers elements of SIHIP; however, it is not accountable for any financial reporting on works in progress for that program.
I would like to congratulate those people who work in the Construction Division for an outstanding job of delivering services to our government agencies in a proper and timely manner and doing so within budget. It is a very good outcome for those members.
I would like to move on to another government business division sitting within the Department of Transport, the Darwin Bus Service. The audit was completed on the financial year statements of the Darwin Bus Service for the year ending 30 June 2013, and the Auditor-General has issued an unqualified audit report on the financial statements of the Darwin Bus Service. Again, there are some very fine people in that government business division who I have had the pleasure of meeting and working with as Minister for Transport for just over 12 months. They are a very professional group of people and when we look at the results of the Auditor-General’s audit of the Darwin Bus Service, with an unqualified audit report on the financial statements, it is also apparent.
These financial statements were publicly reported in the Department of Transport’s 2013 annual report. The Darwin Bus Service primarily receives its income from contracting bus services to the Department of Transport. The Department of Transport pays providers to provide a service throughout Darwin, Palmerston, the rural area and Alice Springs. There are also bus services in Nhulunbuy.
The Darwin Bus Service reported a reduced profit in this last financial year of $332 000 after tax compared with the previous year of $719 000 for that previous year. The reduction primarily relates to the impact of the enterprise bargaining agreement escalation on salaries. Therefore, the financial position of the Darwin Bus Service is such that it is primarily asset based and its bus fleet is owned outright. As at 30 June last year its cash balance was $3.5m, with $46.6m as the book value of its property, plant and equipment.
Calls for tenders have closed and are being assessed at this point for the privatisation of the bus services the Department of Transport will contract out. I look forward to seeing those tenders, but, generally, the Auditor-General gave those business divisions a clean bill of health and has reported very positively on the running of those government business divisions. I congratulate those people who work in that area for a fine job.
Mr CHANDLER (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Madam Speaker, I have a couple of comments on the Auditor-General’s February 2014 report, the audit findings and analysis of the financial statements for the year ending 30 June 2013. In my areas of responsibility, it did not identify any material weaknesses in controls; NT Build was the only thing mentioned this time around.
The audit opinion on the financial statements of NT Build for the year ending 30 June 2013 was qualified as follows:
- The statutory obligation to notify NT Build of the commencement of a project rests with the developer.
… not all types of construction work carried out in the Territory require a building permit.
Due to the nature of the approval process within the Northern Territory Construction industry, there exists some uncertainty regarding the ability of NT Build to identify all construction and maintenance projects that fall within the scope of the Construction Industry Long Service Leave and Benefits Act.
As such, the Auditor-General was unable to satisfy himself …
- … as to the completeness of the $9,623,533 disclosed as 'Contributions from levy payers' in the statement of comprehensive income.
The following comments were provided for incorporation into the February 2014 report to the Legislative Assembly in relation to the audit of NT Build.
- The NT Build Board notes the audit findings and accepts the qualification of the audit opinion.
- Throughout the 2012-13 reporting period NT Build continued to work closely with the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment to pursue legislative amendments in order to strengthen NT Build’s ability to maximise levy compliance:
- The Board notes that changes to the current building approval regime will have a limited effect. However, it will enable NT Build to better concentrate its resources on identifying leviable construction undertaken throughout the non-controlled areas of the Northern Territory.
- Notwithstanding the above the Board remains confident that a high level of compliance is being achieved, although a level of uncertainty may always exist. As a consequence, NT Build continues to utilise and refine a range of mechanisms to identify construction projects throughout the Northern Territory.
Thank you.
Motion agreed to; report noted.
MOTION
Note Statement - Indigenous Economic Development
Note Statement - Indigenous Economic Development
Continued from 12 February 2014.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I make my contribution to the Chief Minister’s statement on Indigenous economic development at an interesting time in this House where we have formulated a committee to look into a very important area of child health which relates to the Indigenous community.
I start by saying to the Chief Minister I encourage your policy making and government intervention into Indigenous economic development to specifically look at Indigenous health, because in your statement there is a lot of the same rhetoric around employment and training and economic outcomes we hear day in, day out. I encourage you to look into the reality of creating an Indigenous workforce in the Northern Territory which relates to good health and wellbeing.
The Chief Minister’s statement does not provide many solutions in this area, but he outlines a list of great challenges in child growth and development. He starts that section of the statement with:
- A child born in a remote community has a bleak outlook, sadly, even today.
He goes on to dot point some of those areas of great concern where government must intervene.
The Chief Minister says:
- To be job-ready as an adult, this child must escape chronic illness, including kidney disease and diabetes, which are twice as prevalent in their communities.
I agree with the Chief Minister; however, it goes back to one baseline and that is education and awareness. There is so much work to be done in preparing the Indigenous community of the Northern Territory for the great opportunities now online and coming online for the future.
There is a way to succeed in this area, and it is directly investing and directly creating that support base around health and wellbeing. In this House we have heard the challenges and needs of the Indigenous community of the Northern Territory, but I encourage the Chief Minister to focus on what the government can do, starting pragmatically at the early childhood level. When I say the early childhood level I mean the 0 to 8 years, because these are future Territorians from our Indigenous community who need to be supported and prepared.
The Chief Minister talks about all the indicators he has discussed for improving outcomes and finding a job. All these indicators are fine – they are spelt out in the statement – but, once again, it is so important we focus on education to training and employment.
Unfortunately, the statement goes back into the political slap. In one paragraph, it says:
- If Labor had its way, it would leave every Indigenous child in the Territory subject to third-world conditions so it can score a few more cheap political points in the papers. Labor had a decade to tackle this problem and the nett result was nothing.
Being a young Territorian yourself, Chief Minister, I could start quoting from 27 years of Country Liberal Party government in the Northern Territory. I could relate my contribution to the debate around education and training to employment with a story of the silver bullets – the caravan infrastructure that was set up in the Northern Territory for Indigenous kids in remote areas. I can personally tell you about checker plate steel steps where you could fry eggs for about four months of the year, and they were the entry points into these caravans for kids who had no shoes.
I can tell you stories about bringing a caravan into a remote community and setting it up as a school, with the message that if you do not conform we can put the wheels back on it and tow it out just as fast. We need to shift the dialogue, move on, leave the blame game behind and start to focus on what we can deliver.
In delivering education in the Northern Territory, and Indigenous education, reflect on a few policies that have been put in train and be careful of what your government is dismantling. Labor took seriously the education of our kids in the bush, with seven new high schools. There was none under previous CLP governments, and we wait to see what will happen under this one. There were 200 additional teachers and a job guarantee for all Year 12 graduates of bush schools. Labor made sure families in the bush had options, since it is reasonable for families to expect access to secondary schooling options without having to send their children hundreds of kilometres away because they have no choice. Labor established secondary education in remote communities and oversaw the graduating of over 150 young Territorians. Labor delivered improvements to every bush school, working with families to boost school attendance with the Every Child, Every Day policy.
Labor supported 13 Clontarf football academies for boys’ and girls’ engagement, mentoring and support programs at Casuarina Senior College, Dripstone, Sanderson and Nightcliff Middle Schools, Tennant Creek High School, and to help engage young Indigenous girls in schooling. Labor established remote trade training centres to build a local trades workforce in our bush towns.
NAPLAN: the percentage of Indigenous students achieving the national minimum standard in reading has increased in Years 3, 5 and 7 since 2008. Year 3 Indigenous students have shown the largest increase, with 39.6% achieving the national minimum standard in 2012 compared to 30.4% in 2008, an increase of 9.2%. These are small gains but heading in the right direction.
Of the 1209 students receiving their NTCET in 2012, 135, or 11%, identified as Indigenous. The 135 students comprised 21 females and 64 males. Each Indigenous student achieved their NTCET studying in their own community in 2012: Shepherdson College, one; Ramingining School, four; Yirrkala School, one; Gunbalanya School and West Arnhem College, two. Fifteen students in a remote location completed their NTCET at the Open Education Centre, and 10 of these students were from Gapuwiyak School. These students are all role models for their communities and show that remote secondary education works.
This is what I mean about moving forward. It is about being smarter, as the current minister said, but it is also about recognising important policies in train to create generational change. When you dismantle moves that are going forward fostering generational change, then you risk achieving what we all want, which is normal child growth and development, good education, education to training and employment and providing that self-determining factor for Indigenous Territorians.
It is so important we focus on our young people in Indigenous communities because they need that extra support and help. It is not just a political argument, it relates to health and education needs, particularly English as a second language. For most of the students we are talking about, English is a second, third or fourth language.
It is good to see the Chief Minister focusing on this statement with what the previous Labor government had in train and the direction in which the previous government was heading, that is, the use of a regional fly-in fly-out workforce. That was talked about, planned for and in full train under the previous government. We agree, Chief Minister, that we have to foster that because the big mining, construction and transport projects should be staffed by young people from regional and remote areas of the Northern Territory. When you have a project like the Ichthys project in Darwin, supported by a 3500-bed workers’ village, then it is achievable.
I am sorry we missed out on that fourth term, because I had done a lot of background work to make sure we had kids from the Barkly involved in that project. I encourage you, Chief Minister, to continue that momentum and negotiate, on my behalf, and use your very privileged position in the Northern Territory to ensure that happens, not only for kids from the Barkly, but kids from regional areas of Central Australia and the like.
I believe, Chief Minister, you definitely need to look at alternative pathway education programs, trade training centres and an enhancement of career counselling programs targeting that 15- to 17-year-old age group. You must be focused on that group. Unfortunately, we have seen cuts in staffing, a change in models and a refocus away from the middle schools area, supporting senior secondary. We have seen examples, for instance in Tennant Creek at the high school, where subject choice is now extremely limited because of staffing cuts.
We must continue to focus on new ways of doing business. We must get into the area of alternative pathway education because many of these kids are struggling with poor attendance in the primary area. This can be turned around with very targeted vocational and educational training models for young adolescents, and accelerating that learning into the skills they need to get the accreditation to get on to construction, mining and transport sites, to get into the real world and be mentored by the best in the world.
I seriously encourage the Chief Minister to start looking at that. I also encourage the Education minister to ask the department what its plans are.
The Chief Minister talks about wealth and wealth creation, and we have to start talking about demand sharing within communities. That is support around a young person who takes that step, leaves a regional or remote area, travels to a major project, is earning real wages and then returns into a traditional kinship system. We have to define ways to support that student by working with the whole family group – the immediate and extended family – to support that person so they see the real benefit in being the family leader, in going away and getting involved in that employment opportunity, and then coming home and being able to share reasonably within that traditional kinship group.
We need to engage with industry, we need to engage with families, and there is a great deal of work government, through its Departments of Education and Health, can achieve.
The Chief Minister’s statement is a going-to-do list, and this is the hollow rhetoric we continue to hear. We need some substance around that. It is far more important to get into the tin tacks of what is happening rather than what you will do after 18 months as a government, and in relative terms, half time in a government term.
We do not need hollow rhetoric in these statements giving us the philosophical and ideological position. We need to debate what is happening, what people are achieving and what departments are doing.
There are some interesting statistics around the Chief Minister’s aim to engage Indigenous Territorians in employment. I will quote from Eleanor Hall’s program, The World Today, on Radio National Canberra from 10 February 2014, where Hall explains that research from Deloitte Access Economics suggests billions of dollars could be added to the Australian economy if the Indigenous employment rate was improved. Reconciliation Australia claims the study builds the case for continued spending to address Indigenous disadvantage. The report found the NT economy would grow by 10%, NT government revenue by $7.2bn and expenditure decrease by $5bn. Leah Armstrong, CEO of Reconciliation Australia says there needs to be a more tailored approach to this, targeting specific regions.
ABC 24 Sydney, on 12 February 2014 said the Closing the Gap report shows there is still work to be done. Some of the data shows that only the NT is on track to close the mortality rate gap by 2030. The report shows a reduction in smoking rates, and argues for a continuation of nearly $2bn in funding aimed at improving early childhood development and health outcomes.
It needs investment. There is no way around that, but these reports show there should be targeted investment into new ways of doing, reflecting the modern Indigenous community and the young people today. These young people are tech savvy and are connected, via social media and multimedia, with what is going on in the world. For those young people who are more experienced in travel and their world view, we need to have new systems in place and a very specific focus coming through early childhood, from zero to eight years, through the middle schools and into senior secondary. These kids will create the generational change required to turn things around and deliver and improve the social and economic outcomes the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory so desires.
Another area I will touch on is the backward steps from government in investment; we can look at various federal programs which have been cut. The Abbott Liberal government in Canberra scrapped a host of funding for round five of the Regional Development Australia Fund, which is a retrograde step. We need those regional programs focused on the development of infrastructure to create jobs. If we train our young people, especially our Indigenous young people across the regions, we need regional infrastructure investment.
I will briefly touch on the contracts signed by the CLP. The Borroloola contract had a mention in Question Time today and the outcome is straightforward; there is infrastructure to support Motor Vehicle Registry services in Borroloola, it can be a great trial from this government. The minister needs to look seriously at it and has a head start. The CLP does not have to build the building, run the infrastructure program or the repair and maintenance programs around the building. All it needs is to pay its fair share in rent to set up an MVR service in Borroloola as a pilot to show how this can roll-out in regional areas.
I place on the public record my great concern around the Chief Minister, the member for Braitling, the Treasurer’s and the member for Port Darwin’s support for a nuclear waste dump at Muckaty Station. This is not important Indigenous economic development; it is a retrograde step and Country Liberal Party members need to have this debate. Do they stand up for Australia’s first purpose-built nuclear waste dump being in the Territory at Muckaty Station? The people of Blain will be aware of this support from the Country Liberal Party government and will need to articulate this issue as part of the by-election because when Australia’s intermediate to high level waste returns to the continent it will through Darwin and be trucked from the East Arm Logistics Precinct to a railhead. It will then travel through Palmerston before its journey to the proposed Muckaty site.
The Country Liberal Party needs to define this issue. Do members support it, like the Chief Minister and the member for Fong Lim, the Treasurer? Do they really support Australia’s first nuclear waste dump being imposed on the Northern Territory? Do they feel this is a link to Indigenous economic development? They need to articulate their position very clearly to the Northern Territory community.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I support this statement on Indigenous economic development in the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory government recognises the key to increasing Indigenous economic development is real jobs and investment. My portfolios of Mines and Energy, Primary Industry and Fisheries, Land Resource Management and Essential Services cover many of the sectors and industries that have real potential to create lasting economic development and jobs for Indigenous people across the Territory.
These portfolios are perhaps best placed in the Northern Territory government to initiate support and develop programs for Indigenous economic development activities in remote and regional areas.
My Department of Mines and Energy supports new initiatives to drive Indigenous economic development by adopting responsible policy initiatives that encourage economic development in regional areas with obvious benefits for Indigenous people. We have seen, in a number of significant Northern Territory mining operations, real opportunities for Indigenous people, both through direct employment and from flow-on benefits from increased economic activity and the provision of services in the region.
For example, Ranger mine at Jabiru has had up to 20% Indigenous employment, and other major operations such as McArthur River mine near Borroloola and GEMCO on Groote Eylandt have also made significant efforts to employ local people. This is in addition to other flow-on benefits from mines, such as the creation of indirect jobs, royalty payments and support for local activities. While I am talking about job opportunities for people in the mining sector I hark back to the experience with Groote Eylandt mine, where we now see third generation family members being employed in that mining operation. That is a perfect example of the long-term benefits mines such as that can bring to a region not just in employment opportunities, but the economic benefits that flow.
It makes sense for operators looking to develop new mines to work closely with local Indigenous communities for ways in which mutual outcomes can be achieved. We are now seeing this effect in the Roper Bar area, with new iron ore operations coming on stream.
Within the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries, Indigenous economic development also has a high priority. The Fisheries Division has a dedicated Indigenous development unit, employing eight staff to initiate development programs in response to community aspirations around aquaculture projects. After years of consultation and the expression of a strong desire by remote Aboriginal communities to be involved in the seafood industry, the Fisheries Division has undertaken a consultative process with traditional owners in East Arnhem Land, which has led to the establishment of the Garngirr Fishing Aboriginal Corporation. Garngirr intends to operate a fishing cooperative model across East Arnhem Land. Garngirr will coordinate and facilitate family based fishing businesses and assist with the sale and distribution of seafood product. Members of the board represent Elcho, the English Company Islands Milingimbi, Gove, Blue Mud Bay and Gapuwiyak.
Two scientific fishing permits have been issued to Indigenous Territorians at Gove and Elcho Island. These permits allow fishers to contribute to research on the sustainability of inshore fish stocks, and also allow the commercial sale of fish. The first shipments of fish from these projects have already gone on sale at the Darwin fish market – an outstanding result.
The department’s Fisheries Division has also employed an Indigenous commercial fishing mentor who has been working with Elcho and Gove, as well as other communities throughout Arnhem Land from Maningrida across to Ngukurr, with some 30 people being tutored in commercial fishing skills. The Fisheries Division also supports eight Indigenous marine ranger groups funded under a fee for service model, where these groups are paid to undertake fisheries research and compliance activities.
Since July 2013, Fisheries has undertaken on country training with rangers at Maningrida, Ramingining, Milingimbi, Blue Mud Bay, Groote Eylandt, Daly River and Wadeye. The water police unit and Charles Darwin University have also been involved in these training and compliance exercises.
Rangers at Warruwi and Groote Eylandt, in association with industry and government partners, are assisting with aquaculture projects on tropical rock oyster, giant clams and sea cucumbers that could provide long-term economic benefit to remote communities.
The Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries is also a partner in the multiagency Indigenous Pastoral Program that has been running since its pilot program commenced in 2003. Indigenous Pastoral Program partners include the Northern and Central Land Councils, the Indigenous Land Corporation, the former federal Department of Employment, Education and Workplace Relations and the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association.
The Indigenous Pastoral Program aims to increase pastoral production on Indigenous land, increase Indigenous participation in the pastoral industry and assist Indigenous organisations in their efforts to create viable cattle businesses on their land. Indigenous Pastoral Programs support 14 Indigenous properties towards developing their full potential as viable cattle operations, while managing the land in a sustainable manner and providing training to increase Indigenous employment.
Since 2003, some of the achievements under the Indigenous Pastoral Program include: an increase in cattle numbers on Indigenous lands of approximately 90 000 head; an additional area of about 2400 km2 of land fenced, watered and in pastoral production; 25 new grazing licences on Indigenous owned land covering 34 000 km2; in excess of $8m overall in infrastructure improvement and development; the creation of 64 new jobs, as well as a significant number of Indigenous people preparing to enter the pastoral industry workforce through formal and informal training; and improved land management in fire, weeds, feral animals, improved grazing land management and livestock husbandry. These are excellent results for the 10 years this program has been operating.
The Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries, with co-funding from the Indigenous Land Corporation, provides staff in Katherine, Alice Springs and Darwin who provide pastoral extension services to support enterprise development for established and emerging Indigenous pastoral properties.
Turning to my portfolio of Land Resource Management, the recent amendment of the non-pastoral use provisions under the Pastoral Land Act allows pastoralists greater opportunity to diversify their income streams and create potential employment opportunities in horticulture and agriculture industry in the regions. This, however, is reliant on non-pastoral business enterprises on pastoral properties being established.
Amendment of non-pastoral permits being issued for up to 30 years, as opposed to five years, and for permits to be registered against a lease and being transferrable upon sale of a property as opposed to being issued to a person, creates an economic development opportunity.
The department’s Bushfires NT also recognises the potential for traditional owners to generate and sell carbon credits on suitable land in the north of the Territory. The West Arnhem Fire Management Agreement project generates over 100 000 tonnes of carbon emission abatement and over $1.2m worth of revenue for traditional owners each year. Carbon emissions from wildfire are reduced through a program of early Dry Season fuel reduction burning and later Dry Season wildfire suppression. The revenue is directed entirely to land management activities, creating jobs in remote areas where employment opportunities are scarce.
The department’s crocodile management practices also provide substantial economic benefit to Indigenous landholders through sustainable harvest of both eggs and animals. In the Northern Territory, around 70% of crocodile habitat is on Indigenous land, and approximately 70% of egg harvest is also from Indigenous land. Indigenous landholders receive royalty payments of $22 per egg. In 2013 total egg harvest was over 47 000. Around 35 000 came from Indigenous land and provided an estimated royalty value of almost $780 000.
In 2012 there were around 200 crocodiles harvested from Indigenous land at approximately $200 per animal with royalty payments totalling almost $40 000. Both crocodile egg harvest and animal harvest provide real employment for locals in remote and regional areas.
Three Indigenous groups hold permits to harvest crocodile eggs: Thamarrurr Development Corporation at Wadeye; Gunbalanya – I might have trouble with this one and might not name the group of rangers at Gunbalanya; and Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation at Maningrida. The Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation also value adds to this process by incubating eggs and selling hatchlings.
Wildlife permits, the majority of which are issued to Indigenous groups, are also used to provide local Indigenous employment in remote areas as royalty payments are made when animals are collected for sale or breeding purposes. This includes a trial harvest and captive breeding of Oenpelli pythons, the sustainable harvest of a range of bush tucker species, the harvest and captive breeding of a range of commercial reptile species for the pet trade and the harvesting and sale of live magpie geese.
Within the department’s Water Resources Division a two-year Darwin Harbour Indigenous marine ranger program has commenced to train at least two Indigenous rangers in the technical skills required for the environmental monitoring of marine and coastal environments. This training program is with the Larrakia Nation Aboriginal Corporation and will enhance employment opportunities for the rangers as well as provide an opportunity for the corporation to expand its environmental monitoring of commercial operations with trained rangers.
Access to reliable high quality fresh water supplies is fundamental to drive economic development. In the regions, irrigated agriculture, horticulture or aquaculture projects provide economic development opportunities for Indigenous Territorians. The Department of Land Resource Management is working with Indigenous organisations such as Centrefarm to access water resources.
Turning to Essential Services, within the Power and Water Corporation, Indigenous Essential Services or IES, a not-for-profit subsidiary of the corporation, delivers reliable and equitable utility services in 72 remote Indigenous communities throughout the Northern Territory. Power and Water has contracts with various organisations for day-to-day work performed in remote communities which is undertaken by Essential Services Operators, or ESOs, hired by those organisations, including shires and private contractors.
The ESOs are an essential part of Power and Water’s extended contract workforce responsible for carrying out a range of regular tasks as part of the operation and maintenance of these essential services. They are the first to respond to unplanned power and water supply interruptions and emergencies. The Northern Territory has about 150 ESOs, almost 40% of whom are Indigenous. The ESO role in the community provides a unique and valuable job opportunity for local people. Through these contracts and a specific training program, Power and Water is able to build at local capacity, which is very important.
The longer term vision is for local Indigenous organisations to be established to use and build on these already available skills to tender for the ongoing ESO work. Power and Water releases open tenders for the ESO services and supports Indigenous economic development. Development of community capacity by developing infrastructure-related skills for local Indigenous people is the key step in this process.
Power and Water also has multiple contracts in place for the construction or maintenance of infrastructure, where possible, involving locally based organisations.
It is obvious this government is committed to providing and supporting economic development opportunities for Indigenous Territorians. We already have runs on the board in regard to creating and supporting jobs and businesses in regional and remote areas.
I strongly support the Chief Minister’s statement on Indigenous economic development in the Northern Territory. It is a principle upon which we rely as a conservative government, and whether you are talking about Indigenous economic development, economic development generally or at large across the Northern Territory, it is within the DNA of conservative governments, which is true of this Country Liberals government.
We recognise the importance of local people having – the people who live in regional and remote parts of the Northern Territory – access to real jobs, and although you could argue successfully real jobs are provided through the provision of government services on remote communities, much more can and should be done. We should not allow government funded jobs, whether they are Commonwealth, Northern Territory or local government, to be the only jobs available in local communities.
In order to build an economic base for the regions of the Northern Territory we need private enterprise to do what it does well – creating job opportunities. There are many barriers to this, but we are working as a government, diligently, with our heads down and our backsides up, trying to create an environment which is conducive to this type of private sector investment in regional parts of the Northern Territory.
Take, for example, the mining sector. By having a regulatory regime which is competitive against the other states and many other nations in the world, we create an environment where mining companies and exploration companies will come here to search for the next big discovery. Typically, the next big discovery will not be in rural Darwin or on the outskirts of Katherine, it will be remote. The Northern Territory is fundamentally underexplored and underdeveloped, especially in the minerals and oil and gas sectors. The opportunities existing through that sector alone are enormous for the economy of the Northern Territory, but also for what it represents in potential for Indigenous economic development.
Moving away from mining, let us look at what happened in Western Australia around the Ord. Western Australia has done a stellar job in developing its side of the Ord agricultural precinct. It has taken 40 or 50 years to get to where they are today, and I am delighted the Northern Territory government has seen fit to grant major project status to the work to be done in the Northern Territory to develop our side of the Ord agricultural area.
We have signed a memorandum of understanding with the Commonwealth and Western Australia so we all do our bit and pull together to develop the Northern Territory side. If we can emulate what happened in Western Australia, will that not be a good thing for the Territory? I am yet to describe the good things that have happened in Western Australia.
Spawned by the development of the Ord was the construction of roads, major irrigation channels and other infrastructure. The work being done to laser level the available land adjacent to the infrastructure has created a number of opportunities for small businesses to start, as you would expect. I hope it does not come as a surprise …
Mr HIGGINS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move that the member be granted an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Thank you, member for Daly for allowing me an extension of time.
It should come as no surprise that a number of small businesses which started in and around Kununurra are Indigenous, owned and operated by Indigenous people, Indigenous companies, employing Indigenous people. That is a prime example of the type of economic development that could and should be emulated in the Northern Territory. It can and should happen. Those opportunities should be afforded to Aboriginal people across the Northern Territory.
It is only from the provision of real jobs you will find capacity for any person – but in this context Indigenous people – to make their lot in life a little better, to give them opportunities to create and generate their own wealth. Most people do not get wealthy by working for the government, and that is no reflection on wages, EBA agreements or anything else; it is just a fact of life. That is fine if that is your lot and what you want to do. I applaud you for that, because your work for the Northern Territory or Commonwealth governments is vital …
Mr Higgins: Every job is important.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I pick up on the interjection from the member for Daly. Every job is important, but by living on a wage like that you do not get wealthy. The idea is to provide economic opportunities so people can become wealthy by building their own business. Indigenous people should have an opportunity to create or buy their own business. It makes sense so why should they not have that opportunity?
This government is working towards that. We have a plan for this to occur by working respectfully and carefully with the Northern Land Council, with traditional owners and even MG Corp in Western Australia. We are working on a plan to provide opportunities by getting the necessary approvals to open up places like the Ord on the Northern Territory side.
So therein lies, I suppose – again as an example – a fundamental of what this government is all about and what it stands for. It does not stand for just going with the flow, it is about creating opportunity. To create opportunity, particularly in difficult circumstances – I mentioned before the Ord being around for 40 or 50 years – one must wonder why it has never taken a big step forward until recent years. There are lots of theories about that and probably lots of good answers but, fundamentally, for these developments to happen it requires some political will, political drive and political courage.
Governments of the day need to show courage to pick up issues that are not just a fait accompli, but ones that are tough to deal with, require extended periods of sensitive negotiation and, frankly, sometimes bloody hard work. They should have the courage to take those challenges on and the political drive and will to continue with that work having made the decision, and we have made the decision. This government has decided to drive the Ord development in the Northern Territory.
We now need the will to continue the work to make it happen. Every now and then I hear a barb coming across from the Labor benches about the Ord and where it is at, why it is not happening, it is dead in the water and all those types of things …
Mr Higgins: Stop listening.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I pick up on the interjection from the member for Daly. I try to stop listening but that would be disrespectful to the members opposite. I listen to what they say, which is why I get a bit tetchy and sensitive about this because, in the 19 months this government has been in power, we have done more to progress the Ord than the former Labor government did over 11 years of stewardship in the Northern Territory. It is a little disingenuous, at best, that the Labor opposition should criticise us for where we are on the Ord, given the amount of work we have done and what we have achieved to date.
It is with pleasure that I support this statement today. I have delved into a couple of examples of what Indigenous economic development really means and how this government is proposing to drive growth in that sector. However, it is important to have specific examples so people can look at this and see the government is not all about rhetoric, it is doing something. I can guarantee you, members of this House and of the public, that this government is committed and driven to achieving economic development for Indigenous people across the Northern Territory.
It is an honour to be part of a government that is working so hard to this end, and I am delighted to be the minister responsible for two of the very critical portfolios that will underpin the economic growth of the Northern Territory for decades and generations to come. It is my sincere hope that Indigenous people across the Northern Territory come along for the ride.
When we talk about big projects in the Territory INPEX provides an enormous amount of stimulus for Darwin particularly, as well as other parts of the Top End. That is an example of one very large project providing economic development in the Northern Territory. However, the opportunities exist everywhere across the Territory.
Who is to say in five or 10 years’ time the entire Beetaloo Basin is not opened up for the development of gas and oil. Can you imagine what economic benefits that will have for the regions, not just because jobs will be created in the immediate vicinity of Beetaloo Basin – that area south of Katherine to the north of Daly Waters – but the other stimulus that provides: the additional transport required across the Territory to move much of the necessary infrastructure, the building of pipelines to transport the gas and the setting up of catering and laundry businesses around those types of major projects, which is critically important? Those opportunities exist on the periphery, are not often spoken about, but provide a huge bonus to the direct investment we see out of some of these big projects.
With that, it is a pleasure to support this very important statement on Indigenous economic development in the Northern Territory. I am delighted I had the opportunity to let the people of the Territory know what I think about this topic.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for bringing his statement on Indigenous economic development before the House during the February sittings. I have listened with great interest to the contributions of a number of members of this House. There are a number of areas of common interest, a number of areas we agree on about the importance of Indigenous economic development, particularly what it means for people in the bush and, for those of us who represent people in the bush, we obviously have an intense interest in this area.
I agree that all Territorians want a prosperous local economy. All Australians would want that as well, and we want jobs and to create financial wealth. One of the distinctions I make here is between the creation of financial wealth and the accumulation of financial wealth.
Many people recognise an income brings them choice because they have financial independence and can purchase the things they need for themselves and their families. It is through economic independence, as the Chief Minister says, that people will be in charge of their own lives and less reliant on government. It is what everybody should aspire to.
The former Labor government worked hard to help people realise and aspire to economic independence. It is very challenging, as I know members on both side of this House would agree.
I applaud the Chief Minister’s comment on page two about wanting to increase the capability and capacity of Indigenous Territorians and businesses. We all agree with that and the objectives. I am not sure I agree with all his objectives, such as a prosperous Territory economy must include the potential of our regions and encourage private investment and the need to support local capacity building. However, on the issue of encouraging private investment, at the heart of my own electorate – the major population centre of Nhulunbuy – we have been in a state of limbo for four months with the major employer, Rio Tinto, announcing its decision on 29 November to curtail its operations and shed more than 1000 jobs. That will see the population drop from 4000 to anything from 1200 – if we are lucky – to 1800.
Nhulunbuy has all the infrastructure one would hope for. It will have a lot of empty houses, it has roads, shops – probably a few more empty shops along the way – a functional deep water port, power, water and a good airport that will probably see a reduction in the number of flights.
We have all that in Nhulunbuy as an important regional centre but, to date, no success in attracting any private investor or private company. We cannot even attract a government department. What hope do we have for our remote Indigenous communities to attract private investment into those places if we cannot attract private investment or convince government to invest there as well?
I put that on the table because it jumped out at me as I was preparing to speak today – the need to attract private investment. We cannot do it in the township of Nhulunbuy. In fact, we are losing businesses and, as we heard today from the Minister for Health, we will lose further businesses – what would have been a significant construction project of $13m for a long overdue upgrade of the emergency department at Gove District Hospital. Gove hospital caters not just for Nhulunbuy but the entire region – an Indigenous population of some 15 000 Yolngu people. Apparently, that project will not proceed because there will be a dwindling of the population. Apparently, half the people who present to the ED department at Gove hospital are non-Indigenous and there is anticipation many non-Indigenous people will be leaving and they cannot justify the expenditure. How does that work? Does that mean the remaining population of Nhulunbuy does not deserve contemporary, state-of-the-art medical facilities to provide medical treatment and save lives?
Somehow, on the economies of scale for the CLP government, the investment of $13m is not worth it. This is on top of $5.3m the former Health minister, the Treasurer, handed back to the federal government saying, ‘Thank you, we do not need a medi-hotel. They are only for long-grassers and there is a pub in town. If people need somewhere to stay, that is where they can go.’
It beggars belief that on one hand we are talking about the need to build capacity and grow our regional economies, then on the other hand we have what is live and happening in Nhulunbuy, including the announcement today of a reappraisal of $13m already committed to Gove District Hospital. I find this staggering.
We need quality services in Nhulunbuy to improve peoples’ lives and this includes health services. I note the statement about ‘real jobs’; this was the language of the former Labor government as well. We invested heavily in real jobs in regional and remote areas of the Northern Territory, targeting Indigenous people getting into real jobs stimulated by the injection of a significant sum of money into jobs in local government when Malarndirri McCarthy was the Local Government minister and member for Arnhem.
Fast-forward to where we are now with real jobs in remote communities. What is happening in housing with the maintenance contracts – the Housing minister has a different view of the world, but does not spend enough time out bush talking to real people to hear what is happening. We are talking about the three tranches of five-year contracts. There is nothing wrong with five-year contracts; they present a wonderful opportunity to create employment in the regional councils – shires, regional councils, same thing, it is a rebadge – and build and sustain jobs. Over a five-year period, there is an opportunity to do something significant around local jobs for local people.
We have the housing maintenance coordination service, which is a locally-based handyman service encouraging local employment. The second one is the tenancy management service, which is about locally-based community housing officers providing tenancy support and advice. The third is the panel contract for trade qualified services. Those first two contracts are big employers of local people and the third one, for trade qualified services, has the potential to move away from a fly-in fly-out arrangement to develop jobs and skills in the communities for local people through traineeships and apprenticeships.
Unfortunately, the five-year contracts across the three tranches through Housing are not delivering what was intended. They were supposed to roll-out on 1 December 2013. In a number of areas they have been pushed back to the beginning of June. I can speak on behalf of my own constituency with the East Arnhem Regional Council, which is covering contracts in these areas month-to-month, unsuccessful in its bid for the cluster looking after Yirrkala, Gapuwiyak and Gunyangara, also known as Ski Beach. We have people employed in regional councils getting a phone call every few months to say, ‘Sorry, I can guarantee your job for another month or so, but we didn’t win the contract and don’t know who has’.
That does nothing to build local employment and confidence for people in jobs with the East Arnhem shire council. There are currently 13 jobs on hold, 11 of which are held by Yolngu people.
On Groote Eylandt the East Arnhem shire council has been asked to continue with these contracts even though it was not allowed to tender for the Groote contract, presumably because they are planning to transition Groote to a stand-alone regional council. They have been very open about that on the floor of the House, and the community has expressed a desire to move down that path. That will be very interesting in itself, once we witness what is unfolding and progressing with the breakup of the Vic Daly Shire. I understand things are not going exactly swimmingly there.
Let us be honest about creating and supporting real jobs in communities. I know from people who have contacted me that where contracts have been awarded in places like the West Arnhem Shire, they are disappointed local regional council employees will not necessarily hold onto those jobs and the contractors who have won the jobs are saying, ‘Can you help us out with housing? Can you assist us with workshop space, capital lay down areas?’ Those types of things, in lack of planning, are just staggering. For contracts that were intended to deliver sustainable employment and build capacity it appears, in a number of areas, to be having the opposite effect.
Real jobs in education have been axed. These were important roles for Indigenous people in classrooms such as teacher aides, support workers, often as translators and cultural brokers between the non-Indigenous teacher and a classroom full of kids. Thanks to the Education minister, the CLP government and the cuts thrust upon education, many of those people are out of jobs. I attended a graduation ceremony at Yirrkala last year where more than a dozen people – predominantly women – had graduated from Batchelor College in both Level 1 and Level 2 Education Support. They do not all have jobs this year because of funding cuts.
This goes to the heart of what the member for Barkly was saying. It is the importance of recognising the core role education has to play in all our lives. Madam Speaker, you would not be here today, I would not be here, members opposite would not be here and staff in the Table Office would not be here if we did not have a decent education which got us to the end of our secondary schooling and gave us choices and options about the type of work we wanted to do.
We certainly understand the difficulties of delivering education in the bush. When we came into government in 2001 we had a void to fill as there was no secondary Indigenous education delivered in regional and remote areas. There was not a single Year 12 Aboriginal graduate from a remote area. In the 11 years or so Labor was in government we endeavoured to turn that around and saw children graduating from Year 12. Did we see hundreds of them? No, but we certainly saw many more than under the CLP government. Twenty-six years of the CLP government with no secondary education in the bush meant there was a huge catch-up to get on top of.
I appreciate an Indigenous education review is under way, but am a little alarmed – and not alone – about one of the recommendations. It is a draft report although, as the Chief Minister is announcing boarding facilities in Nhulunbuy, I assume the draft recommendations have become policy for the Northern Territory government, particularly the view on boarding schools. The recommendation was senior schooling not be provided in remote schools, and those students be located in boarding facilities in larger centres with mainstream schools and participate there.
I am sure the world view of Noel Pearson – I have a great deal of time for some of the views and people listen to him. His view, through the Cape York Institute and for students in far north Queensland, is they must leave their communities and travel to mainstream centres to complete their schooling.
Many people disagree with that view, particularly in Arnhem Land. Some families are incredibly protective of their children and their culture, and want to have a say in their child’s education and see their child educated on country. If this move to boarding facilities progresses, I am flagging the Chief Minister be prepared for some real consultation and a genuine commitment to convince Indigenous families this is the best thing. What it does, sadly, is remove choice.
I know a number of families in my electorate who choose to send their children to boarding school, and good on them. I see those kids go away and come back with great success. However, the boarding facility recommendation from the Indigenous education review does not provide that choice. It tells families, ‘If you want your child to receive a senior secondary education they have to relocate’. I can see it will be fraught for a number of communities.
When we talk about real jobs, I guess all other members receive the same publications I do. When I pop into my parliamentary office sometimes there is mail. The publication from NAILSMA, the North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance, is called Kantri Laif. You have only to flick through the pages to read all about Indigenous employment and training opportunities and, with it, many success stories. Obviously these stories are focused on Indigenous people on land and sea country, the intrinsic connection to land and sea country. At the core and heart of Indigenous culture is a massive source of employment for people around traditional Indigenous knowledge and culture.
As I am sure the Minister for Parks and Wildlife would appreciate, a brilliant employer of people is ranger programs. The member for Katherine spoke about the fabulous ranger programs which are big employers of Indigenous people, but also in strengthening and maintaining culture, developing knowledge, and teaching non-Indigenous western culture about traditional culture.
In this publication – there is no page number but it is page 28 – there is a double-page spread about the Yirralka Miyalk Rangers. Miyalk is women. These are women from the Laynhapuy Homelands who do amazing work. The article is – I have a show and tell for you, it is the ex-schoolteacher in me – about the Yirralka Rangers producing a number of bush products. It is a shame the day the member for Namatjira and the Chief Minister visited the homeland of GanGan to announce their homelands policy they did not have time to stop because they were busy making handmade soaps. Obviously they purchase products to gel them together, but there are medicinal products in them collected from the bush with some fantastic healing properties. These products are an enormous source of pride to the people who produce them. A little jar of – my Yolngu Matha is terrible so I will not attempt to say the word – a bush body scrub. This generates employment and income at the Nhulunbuy markets held once a month …
Mr CHANDLER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move that the member be granted an extension of time.
Motion agreed to.
Ms WALKER: Thank you very much, member for Brennan. As members know, I love my baskets and have a considerable collection of bathi produced by fibre artists and entirely hand made from the pandanus collected on country. They are works of art and sell with a considerable price tag on them, but it does not reflect the hours that have gone into them.
I remember when talking about baskets in the last Assembly I was lambasted by the now Chief Minister who said – and the member for Fong Lim as well wanted to know – ‘Baskets, baskets, what is the member for Nhulunbuy talking about baskets for?’ I am talking about baskets because, while it is wonderful to have the ‘think big’ big end of town businesses, let us not lose sight of those businesses, those skills and those little economies in our communities which generate wealth for the people who live there. At the same time, people retain their culture and pass on to their community important skills and knowledge that are very much at the core of their lives.
The cost of living and the cost of doing business out bush and in regional and remote communities is phenomenal. We know – it is fact; I am not making it up or being mischievous – the cost of living has gone up in the last 18 months under the CLP government. It is entirely contrary to its commitment to drive down the cost of living; the cost of living has gone up. Power prices are up by 25% with more to come, water prices are up, and I do not think people, unless they are out bush and talking to people who live there, realise the impact of the increase in power tariffs. It is a significant and negative impact on people’s lives. When that power card has run out after two or three days as opposed to the five or six days it used to last, and there is no more money in the household until pay day comes around there is no electricity in the house, it is that simple. There are no fans, no washing machine, no fridge and, with that, no food security. I cannot emphasise how important the cost of living is and the negative impact it is currently having on people. Of course, that translates to business. If families cannot make it work, it will be difficult for businesses to make it work.
In regard to the cost of living and food security, I attended the Menzies School of Health breakfast last Thursday morning for the annual Closing the Gap recognition. There were a number of excellent speakers from Menzies School of Health, and a dietician – forgive me, I cannot remember her name – gave a presentation about one of the programs Menzies runs called ‘Shop at RIC’. I thought, ‘Shop at RIC, what does that mean?’ Shop at RIC stands for ‘shop at remote Indigenous community’. It is a program trying to promote healthy living in our communities, and urban areas for that matter, for Indigenous people to understand the importance of good nutrition, value for money and the impact upon health if people do not enjoy a balanced diet.
One of the barriers to a good and balanced diet is the cost of food. During this presentation she highlighted the difference between purchasing a basket of groceries for a family of six which would last for a two-week period. The price in a Darwin urban setting for that basket of groceries was $534. That same basket of groceries in a regional remote area costs $760 – more than $200 for the same basket of groceries in a remote store purchased by people not making good money. That means at the same time as trying to pay their power bills and keep the lights, fans and fridge on, that difference in cost of living is phenomenal. It is why people go hungry and children may struggle to get to school, because there is no food at home. It might account for why people and kids turn to sniffing volatile substances, because the high from sniffing takes the edge off their hunger. Those cost of living figures were staggering and are something we all need to be cognisant of.
Before I close I want to talk about the importance of investing in infrastructure. I mentioned how disappointing it is that $13m allocated to Gove District Hospital to upgrade the ED department – what this will mean. Does it mean a project which would have employed people and, ultimately, delivered much improved health services to the region will not happen? In Question Time today the Infrastructure minister was asked about barge landings, and we could talk about roads as well.
Unless we have the infrastructure in place to drive and enhance the economic opportunities for these communities, they will struggle to deliver. There is no decent barge landing at Gapuwiyak; it is a muddy bank. There is no hard stand area, there are no lights so if a barge comes in – as it has to at Gapuwiyak on the tide, up a river – the barge has to be unloaded overnight because there is no security to drop off containers and leave them until the next day when the ALPA store comes out.
Investment in roads is a huge demand for government. I am proud of the government I was part of, with funding coming predominantly from Canberra for significant upgrades to the Central Arnhem Road. Those upgrades are nearing completion, and the last upgrade to go is the crossing at Donydji Creek.
What the Chief Minister has gone quiet on, regarding the Central Arnhem Road, is the bid for $440m to seal it. Knowing the competitive process to upgrade the roads network in the Northern Territory, where only 23% of the roads are sealed, how will the Chief Minister go with this? He pops out to Nhulunbuy with big picture ideas about how Nhulunbuy will be saved and says, ‘I hear what the regional economic development committee is telling me and yes, there needs to be $440m for the Central Arnhem Road’.
There is no sign of this whatsoever, and no sign of the development of the buffalo export industry for the northeast Arnhem Land region. The first export has gone to Vietnam, fantastic news, but I have heard nothing further about how the business is progressing in northeast Arnhem Land. Tourism is another potential for Nhulunbuy, as it is for many regions around the Northern Territory. In Nhulunbuy, to try to bolster the regional economy in the downturn we are currently in, we were offered by the Tourism minister – any money is gratefully received – $10 000.
He offered a $10 000 grant to boost tourism in the northeast Arnhem Land region. Yesterday, $25 000 was announced for a bike race in Alice Springs. They do not quite weigh up; they do not stack up and we will be looking closely at what is being offered for the Nhulunbuy region.
In the coming weeks we will also be looking closely – in the lead-up to budget hand down – at what investment there will be into the bush. I am not sure if this statement is about to be wound up or adjourned, but if it is adjourned I hope we hear from the three renegade bush members from the other side. They have had an awful lot to say about what they are unhappy with. Right here, right now in this ministerial statement would be the perfect opportunity to have their say and put their views on the record.
I acknowledge we have no minister responsible for Indigenous policy or advancement in the Northern Territory, completely in contrast to Tony Abbott who, as Prime Minister, has Indigenous Affairs in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. It does not quite weigh up with the Territory. Mind you, it probably speaks volumes about the chasm we have between the CLP Chief Minister and Prime Minister Abbott.
I thank the Chief Minister for his statement, even though he was unable to deliver it himself, and look forward to him delivering on the many promises.
Debate adjourned.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Amadeus Gas Pipeline
Amadeus Gas Pipeline
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, today I provide the Assembly with details of a missed strategic opportunity regarding the Amadeus gas pipeline and, in particular, the failure of the former Territory Labor government to secure a vital piece of infrastructure for a bargain price.
From the outset I make the point this is in no way an attack on the APA Group. The APA Group is a good corporate citizen of the Northern Territory, and has been for many years. As a company, they have a fiduciary obligation to act in the best interest of the company and maximise shareholder returns. It is the same fiduciary obligation that was so lacking by the previous Labor government.
Yesterday, I informed this House about the former Labor government’s scandalous fiduciary neglect with the Territory government’s asset management system, which has resulted in a waste of $70m. This missed strategic opportunity regarding the Amadeus pipeline is another tale of recklessness and ineptitude by the former Labor Treasurer and now Leader of the Opposition, Delia Lawrie, which sees an essential piece of infrastructure effectively privatised after it has been underwritten by the Northern Territory taxpayer. Compare this to today, where we have the Leader of the Opposition saying electricity, water and sewerage services are all essential services that should remain under government ownership, yet on the other hand she presided over the privatisation of a key part of the value chain, in this case, the Amadeus pipeline.
At the termination of the long-term leverage lease agreement on 16 June 2011, the former Territory Labor government had an ability to force an open sale in order to buy the Amadeus gas pipeline on behalf of Territorians. Instead, it supported the continued privatised operation of the Amadeus gas pipeline and allowed the APA group to buy the pipeline for $57.8m.
While that sounds like a lot of money – and it is – we will go on to learn this price reflected merely three years’ worth of lease payments the former government was paying to use the asset. In the context of a household, if you are renting a house and you can buy it for three years’ worth of rent, do you say no?
That is effectively what the Labor government did when it chose to support the continuation of private ownership of the pipeline rather than purchase it for the benefit of Territorians. To add insult to injury, instead of seeing the merits of owning this vital piece of infrastructure the former Labor Treasurer, Delia Lawrie, signed Territorians up to a costly and open-ended, long-term bilateral agreement to continue to use the pipeline to transport gas.
So instead of buying the house for three years’ rent, Labor decided it was best to enter into an expensive and costly long-term gas transportation agreement, but it gets worse. The Labor government even managed to sign itself to funding the pipeline’s remedial works so called ‘special project’ costs. Back to our house example: Labor rejected the chance to buy it for the equivalent of three years’ rent. Instead, it entered into an expensive, open-ended, long-term lease arrangement and agreed to refurbish it.
What a deal! Between the expensive open-ended long-term gas transportation arrangements and the agreement to carry out remedial works, the Territory has been signed up by Labor for $95m in today’s dollars which we should not be paying for over the life of the contract.
In short, Territorians are paying more than what it would have cost the Territory to buy and operate the pipeline. This additional cost Labor signed up for can only be funded by one of two ways: the raising of additional government debt, or passing on the cost to Territorians through electricity tariffs. I wonder which one they chose to do. I suspect it was the easy option. They racked up more debt, but let us take a step back. What is this pipeline, and why would the government even want to own it?
The Amadeus gas pipeline, the AGP, is one of the most important pieces of infrastructure in the Northern Territory. It is the essential pipe through which gas is transported to Power and Water’s power stations which provide power supply to Territorians in Darwin, Katherine, Tennant Creek, Borroloola and Alice Springs. It is vital in keeping the lights on and the Territory supplied with electricity.
The pipeline was constructed in 1985 and 1986, and started operating in late 1986. It was constructed as part of the implementation of a decision by the then Country Liberal government to use the Territory’s domestic gas for the purpose of public electricity supply. In 1984, the Country Liberal government had decided to construct a new coal-fired power station at Channel Island to service the electricity requirements of the Darwin area. The Territory had no coal reserves available, so coal would need to be shipped from interstate in order to fuel power generation.
Following representations from petroleum leaseholders of the then undeveloped Amadeus Basin gas fields (Palm Valley and Mereenie), the Territory government investigated the feasibility of developing the Amadeus Basin gas fields as the primary fuel for the Territory’s electricity needs. This proposal had the added benefit of enabling the supply of gas-generated electricity to the Territory’s regional centres, such as Tennant Creek and Katherine, along the pipeline route.
The gas project comprised three separate parts:
gas fields – the development of the Amadeus Basin gas field
the pipeline – the construction and financing of the pipeline to transport the gas to where it was needed
electricity generation facilities – the construction of the gas-fired electricity generation plants at Channel Island, Katherine and Tennant Creek.
In late 1984, the Territory government considered the relative merits of the coal and gas projects and the possible structures of any gas project. At the same time, the Amadeus Basin producers undertook further reserves investigations. It is abundantly clear the Country Liberals government decided to proceed with the gas project over the coal project, and the implementation of that decision was a prudent decision at the time.
While going with gas might be an obvious decision in this day and age based on environmental considerations, based upon the facts available at that time it was seen to be in the public interest for a number of other reasons. It developed the Territory’s domestic gas reserves, an important decision in itself and one that still accrues benefits today. The Northern Territory gas market was created, meaning other industries could use gas as an energy source. It led to greater competition in the Territory energy market and created royalties and substantial tax receipts for the Territory and Commonwealth governments. Possibly most importantly, development of the Territory’s gas reserves reduced the cost of electricity to Territorians and created new jobs, not least of which by allowing mines such as Woodcutters and McArthur River to go ahead.
The previous Country Liberal government was not afraid to engage the private sector to develop a competitive energy market which, ultimately, led to further investment and economic opportunities. However, without the long-term agreement between NT Gas, the then Power and Water Authority (PAWA) and the Territory government’s support, development of the pipeline would not have occurred. The Amadeus gas pipeline was financed via a tax-effective leverage lease and unit trust structure, the Amadeus Gas Trust, whereby a third party, NT Gas Pty Ltd, constructed the pipeline and sold it to the financiers – Australia’s four major trading banks – who then leased it back to NT Gas.
Power and Water and its predecessors met the cost of the lease payments NT Gas was directly obliged to pay, as well as paying NT Gas a ‘tariff’ for operating and maintaining the Amadeus gas pipeline known as the ‘operating tariff’. A further payment was made to the Amadeus Gas Trust for gas that Power and Water shipped in the Amadeus Gas Trust over and above the volume set out in the foundation gas contracts between its subsidiary company, Gasgo Pty Ltd and the Amadeus Basin gas producers, Santos and Magellan Petroleum. This was known as the ‘transportation levy’.
By 2010-11, the aggregate cost paid by PWC to transport gas through the pipeline was circa $45m. This is made up of lease payments worth $18m, an operating tariff of $13m and a transportation levy of $14m. At the termination of the leverage lease agreement on 16 June 2011, the Labor government and then Treasurer could have bought the Amadeus gas pipeline on behalf of Territorians for around $57.8m, rather than supporting its continued private ownership.
The former Labor government chose not to acquire the pipeline on behalf of Territorians. This was an expensive mistake by the former Labor government, especially in view of the fact the Northern Territory government had guaranteed the Amadeus gas pipeline in the first place, but maybe the former government thought the purchase price was too high; maybe the asset was not worth $57.8m. After all, there is not a particularly deep market for gas pipelines. They do not come on to the market all that often. However, the government need only consider the current estimated value of its investment in the McArthur River gas pipeline.
The estimated value of the NT government’s 50% portion of the McArthur River pipeline is $40m for just 300 km of pipe with a capacity of three petajoules per annum. When we compare this to the Amadeus gas pipeline, which is 1640 km in length and has a capacity of approximately 30 petajoules per annum, 10 times more than the McArthur River pipeline, an additional $20m is quite a modest sum for Territorians to own the Amadeus gas pipeline. Instead PWC, under the direction of the Territory Labor government and then Territory Labor government Treasurer, Delia Lawrie, entered into a costly 25-year bilateral agreement with the APA Group.
The gas transportation agreement initially committed PWC to make minimum annual payments of $18m in 2011-12, together with a number of ongoing obligations to fund remedial work on the AGP which NT Gas failed to perform during its 25-year term as operator of the AGP. Power and Water had advice regarding the terms and conditions sought by APA via the gas transportation agreement at that time that:
the operating charge sought by APA was excessive
APA’s request to have PWC also fund the AGP special projects, i.e. the remedial works, had no contractual basis and was exceedingly risky for PWC, with potential for major cost overruns, therefore should be rejected, and
For all the statements the Labor Leader of the Opposition has made in relation to network reliability in recent days, she seems blissfully unaware and negligent as to the state of the 11 km Darwin City Gate to Channel Island pipe which supplies gas into the generators.
Currently under this bilateral agreement, the annual cost to PWC and Territorians to transport gas via the Amadeus gas pipeline is now in excess of $20m per year. The cost of the remedial special projects, which an independent expert advised should cost in the order of $12m, is now likely to cost more than three times this amount, or about $35m. Does this sound familiar? This is the same situation which prevailed with the Labor leader’s botched asset management system, which blew out from $7.2m to $70m, or for that matter PWC’s asset management system. This was supposed to cost Territory taxpayers $11m and ended up costing more than $60m.
Power and Water’s assessment of a competitive lease payment was $14m per annum based upon historical operational charges and the amortisation of the residual value of the pipeline rather than the initial $18m under the gas transportation agreement, which to date has increased to more than $20m with the amortisation of the ongoing remedial works, which are ultimately included in the lease payments.
As a result, Territorians are paying in excess of $6m more each year because of the former Labor government’s incompetence. Over the contract period this equates to $95m in today’s dollars. In effect, Territorians are paying more than what it would have cost the Territory to buy and operate the pipeline. It is important to appreciate Power and Water’s original assessment excluded the cost for special projects for which there was no pre-existing contractual liability and they were eventually accepted by the Territory Labor government.
This additional cost must be funded by either of two ways: the raising of additional government debt or passing on the cost to Territorians through higher electricity tariffs. Not surprisingly, the Leader of the Opposition has forgotten it was her Territory Labor government which corporatised Power and Water in 2002 with the introduction of the Government Owned Corporations Act. The former Labor government committed PWC to meeting the following conditions under the Government Owned Corporations Act:
- (a) operate at least as efficiently as any comparable business; and
(b) to maximise the sustainable return to the Territory on its investment in the corporation.
However, Labor’s reckless decision not to purchase the Amadeus gas pipeline and, instead, throw away taxpayers’ money by entering into an open-ended agreement is inconsistent with the GOC act requirement to:
- (a) operate at least as efficiently as any comparable business …
It is no wonder the Opposition Leader and former Treasurer has so often chosen to ignore Page 14 of Budget Paper 2, which shows Power and Water’s financial performance was projected to remain well below commercial levels over the period to 2015-16 under no policy change conditions. The former Labor government’s actual return on assets for Territorians was below zero in 2010-11, whereas the target weighted average cost of capital is in excess of 6%. In short, the former Labor government was not even close to economic break even. While the Opposition Leader questions the rationale for commercial or economic returns, Power and Water’s financial performance has been lacklustre and not of the level expected from a blue chip investment.
Over the last 10 financial years, Power and Water has not delivered an accounting profit after excluding taxpayer funded subsidies with the exception of the 2008-09 financial year. The subsidies include the uniform tariff CSO which applies to urban residential customers, the pensioner concessions which apply to the elderly and the subsidies to Indigenous Essential Services and are currently in excess of $150m.
In reality, the taxpayer funded subsidies dwarf any profit before tax in all years between 2003-04 and 2011-12, with the exception, as I said, of 2008-2009.
Given this financial performance, it is no wonder the level of PWC’s debt increased from $290m in 2003-04 to $1.2bn in 2011-12. I will repeat that: given the financial performance, it is no wonder the levels of PWC’s debt increased from $290m in 2003-04 to $1.2bn in 2011-12.
This is an increase of $900m in just eight years or a debt accumulation of $113m per year, and this does not take into account the $150m in other subsidies. In context, this bad decision on the Amadeus gas pipeline by the Labor Opposition Leader and her colleagues is almost equivalent to one year’s average debt burden borne by the Power and Water Corporation in the period from 2003-04 to 2011-12.
Sadly for Territorians, making costly mistakes was a common event for the Labor Opposition Leader and former Treasurer. Moody’s rating agency recognised the need to rectify the financial performance of the Power and Water Corporation and that it was, until recently, surviving only with government support. The Leader of the Opposition is in denial about the dismal state of the corporation, and for that matter the state of the finances inherited by the Giles government.
Madam Speaker, I move the statement be noted.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, Territorians should be very concerned with this Treasurer of the Territory when he leads with his chin and errs in fact in this statement. I have seen some pretty bad statements in my time in this Chamber, but this has hit an all-time low.
As of last night, the government was not able to inform the opposition, as is normal convention, whether or not there would be a statement in the Chamber today. I note the Treasurer cannot stand being here and listening because he would want to run away from the truth.
Madam SPEAKER: Opposition Leader, withdraw that comment.
Ms LAWRIE: I withdraw. I have no doubt the Treasurer would not want to hear the truth in response, because, clearly, he has led with his chin. It is little wonder that as of last night, we were not informed of any statement before the House, and it dropped at about 8 am in e-mails from the government. At 4.30 pm or thereabouts – probably close to 4.45 pm – an amended statement was dropped from the Treasurer.
I did not have the opportunity to read the amended statement and highlight the differences between it and the statement dropped this morning. There is no convention in this House for amended statements to come forth in such a manner without warning, without any clear indication as to why the statement has been amended, but we will do the compare and contrast and highlight amendments in the appropriate sections.
I would rather listen to the experts on this subject than the fool who parades as Treasurer for the government. I say he is a fool because he said this was a Labor deal on the gas pipeline. No, Treasurer, the deal was struck by the CLP.
I am advised it was negotiated when Ian Tuxworth was CLP Treasurer. Negotiations commenced in about 1984 and continued through 1985. The incoming CLP Treasurer, Marshall Perron, then signed off on the Amadeus gas pipeline agreement in 1986.
The agreement included a contingent liability of some $57.8m, which would be sitting there at the end of the lease period and the NT Gas company was the entity which would determine the sale. NT Gas has a relationship to APA which, ultimately, bought the pipeline. NT Gas is a 96% almost fully-owned subsidiary of APA, but I will get to that a bit later.
The Treasurer then asserted Labor did the deal. Clearly, Labor did not do the deal. The Treasurer takes a scant look at the history of why the gas pipeline was created in the first place, and that was for good reason. It was created to provide gas as an energy source for the then new Channel Island Power Station rather than burn coal. Previous CLP governments made that decision in the mid-1980s, and that decision has stood the Territory in quite good stead. We have a cleaner type of energy source for Channel Island than we would have otherwise had. However, they needed to transport the gas from the Central Australian fields to Channel Island, hence the need for the Amadeus gas pipeline.
Back in its day, the project did not attract the endearing view of the private sector. Therefore, the CLP government decided, in the mid-1980s, to underwrite the project thus creating the contingent liability of $57.8m. Essentially, the arrangements were thus: 60% of the lease of the pipeline would occur throughout the life of the lease in payments from the user – Power and Water obviously – to the company, and the remaining 40%, which is the contingent liability which became due in 2011 because there was an extension to those lease arrangements – but I will touch on that in a second – was $57.8m.
I am reliably advised that in signing off the original deal, the then Treasurer, Marshall Perron, also signed a letter. Interestingly enough, this letter is not mentioned by the Treasurer, who is leading with his chin today. The letter signed by former Treasurer, Marshall Perron, said the NT government would not bid against NT Gas, and that was a binding commitment. That was a significant reason why the NT government did not put in a bid in 2011, when I was Treasurer. That letter existed, and quite aside from that, why on earth would any government want to go into the business of an energy infrastructure supplier when an energy infrastructure player of national repute, APA, wanted to purchase the pipeline? It was purchased in the end, I believe, for about $63m.
However, in this strange socialist view the Treasurer has we should have coughed up $63m or gone into a bidding war with the energy infrastructure supplier, APA, that could have, ultimately, invoked the binding commitment Marshall Perron provided to NT Gas and said to their 96% subsidiary, ‘You buy it because these guys are clowns’. We were not clowns and we did the right thing in 2011. Do not worry, that does not suit the bizarre and strange musings of the Treasurer in his statement today.
Fact: it was a CLP deal from the 1980s. Then, in the late 1990s, the deal was renegotiated by former Treasurer, Barry Coulter. We inherited the renegotiated deal. When I say ‘we’, I mean the Labor government. The renegotiated deal, as it should have, included modelling done by merchant bankers Fay Richwhite on whether or not this gas pipeline deal, with its lease requirements and tariffs on lease, was a good deal for the Northern Territory and, therefore, the taxpayer.
In the late 1990s when the modelling was done by the merchant bankers on whether or not it was a good deal, it identified savings of at least $120m over the life of the financing. I am advised by people involved in this project for decades that their considered view was the amount was far greater, but they would admit to $120m in savings in their advice to the Commonwealth.
By any stretch, when the former Treasurer – not Labor – renegotiated the deal Labor inherited it was a good deal: $120m in savings is no small bikkies. The Treasurer likes to make much of the fact we did not take up the option to buy. He ignores former CLP Treasurer, Marshall Perron’s letter with a binding commitment to NT Gas that the government would not bid against them. Indeed, the parent company picked that commitment up – APA – and purchased the pipeline. Why would any government go into a bidding war it would ultimately lose, giving additional revenue to four large banks rather than the opportunity for investment in the Territory? It seems extraordinary and lacking in logic altogether, but that is what we are used to from this Treasurer.
I go to the attempt by the Treasurer to criticise my time as former Treasurer and his attempt to verbal a very fine Australian company in APA. APA is a major ASX-listed gas transportation business with interests in energy infrastructure across mainland Australia. Its assets include more than 14 000 km of natural gas pipelines, gas storage facilities and a wind farm. APA is Australia’s largest transporter of natural gas, delivering approximately half of Australia’s annual gas through its infrastructure. However, no company is safe from this Treasurer when he wants to score cheap political points. It is the Treasurer’s contention that in June 2011, when the original lease for the Amadeus gas pipeline was finished, Labor, in government, should have entered the gas pipeline business. Forget about the need for investment in hospitals, schools and police stations, the Treasurer believes we should have entered into the gas pipeline business. It is a ludicrous suggestion.
The Treasurer should welcome and acknowledge the fact that Australia’s pre-eminent gas transportation company now owns the Amadeus gas pipeline which, as I said, was purchased for $63m not $57.8m.
Let us look at some of the other misleading assertions in the Treasurer’s statement. He refers to the arrangement with APA as an ‘open-ended agreement’. It is not. APA has a 25-year lease with Power and Water Corporation. At the end of that time Power and Water can exercise an option for another 25 years, and why would they not if APA is fulfilling its obligations? He criticises the tariff being paid. Treasurer, the tariff is not set by APA; it is set by the Australian Energy Regulator. The Australian Energy Regulator sets a maximum tariff but, because APA are good corporate citizens, they are charging less. Yes, that is right: their annual rate of return is lower than the rate set by the Australian Energy Regulator.
The Treasurer tried to suggest the Amadeus pipeline would have been a good buy because it is 1640 km compared to the Territory’s 330 km section of the McArthur River pipeline. This, he said, would have been a bargain for only $20m more. Treasurer, pipelines are not valued on the basis of their length – never have been, never will be. Pipelines are valued on the revenue they can generate. You really need to stop writing your own statements because this one is littered with mistruths and you need to get your facts straight.
What was this statement today really about? This is a pathetic attempt to soften the community to justify the government’s plans to split up and privatise Power and Water Corporation. The Treasurer has been raking through old Cabinet submissions and decisions trying to dig up anything to justify the sale of Power and Water Corporation assets. However, Territorians will not be deceived, particularly given the long history of shonky deals and jobs for the boys by successive CLP governments. Is this the standard the Treasurer wants to embrace?
This is an attempted distraction from infighting and turmoil in the CLP and the Chief Minister’s lack of leadership – looking backwards not forward – to address the many challenges confronting the Territory. The CLP has a very poor record on gas. The botched negotiations and reneged deals on gas were central to the demise of the Gove refinery. Terry Mills got it right, Adam Giles botched it. The former Chief Minister was chopped down when negotiating on gas in Japan.
The Treasurer, a purported champion of the private sector, advocates that government should be in the business of owning and operating gas pipelines.
This ministerial statement raises the Treasurer’s preoccupation with the uniform tariff community service obligation which applies to pensioner concessions and subsidies to Indigenous Essential Services.
The community, and the bush members of parliament opposite, should and will be alarmed. Community service obligations are clearly under threat under this Treasurer, driven by Dave Tollner’s obsession to split up and privatise Power and Water and ensure it operates on a commercial basis.
Dave Tollner’s agenda is to make the most vulnerable in our community pay more for electricity, which is why he consistently raises concerns and denigrates the community service obligations currently being paid by government to Power and Water to keep the cost of living reasonable. We should all be very alarmed when Dave Tollner says:
- In reality, the taxpayer funded subsidies dwarf any profit, before tax …
The Treasurer is hell-bent on running Power and Water Corporation as a profit-making entity. It is riddled throughout his statement and central to his privatisation agenda. The Chief Minister has stated all options will be considered, including borrowing more money, raising taxes, reducing services and selling assets. The reason Power and Water Corporation increased debt over the years was to fund major infrastructure and repairs programs.
Treasurer, your reference to debt going from $290m to $1.2bn – you completely ignored the Mervyn Davies report, which required a $1.5bn investment in Power and Water Corporation repairs, maintenance and capital programs to keep the lights on. Little wonder, under you, we are now moving back into the blackout phases of Power and Water Corporation. Little wonder, under your watch, tariff increases are spiralling and the cost of living is out of control. Territorians have every reason to be in grave fear of the agenda being run by Dave Tollner in splitting up Power and Water Corporation.
This statement is a disgrace. You have attacked me personally. as former Treasurer of the Northern Territory, for a deal struck by CLP Treasurers and renegotiated by a CLP Treasurer. I think they did the right thing. I want it on the record that Ian Tuxworth and Marshall Perron, who pursued the vision of gas to service Channel Island, did the right thing. It was no easy thing for a very small jurisdiction in the 1980s to attract investment in a gas pipeline running from Central Australia to the Top End. This is why they chose to strike a deal to underwrite it. Thank God they were greater men than you will ever be, Treasurer Tollner.
Thank God Barry Coulter, in assessing whether or not he could renegotiate the deal and take it to Cabinet to sign off under a CLP government, took the time to have some economic modelling done by merchant bankers. The merchant banker said, ‘You will get about $120m in savings’, but advice received today indicates it was on the very conservative side of the ledger. In June 2011, when presented with a situation where there was a buyer – APA – for some $63m investment in a pipeline in the Territory, any Treasurer worth their salt would ensure our nation’s largest player in energy infrastructure wanting to buy a significant critical piece of energy infrastructure – you did not get in its way and the binding letter from Marshall Perron meant it would have been foolish to even try. APA would have said, ‘NT Gas, you are purchasing on our behalf’.
You are a fool, Dave Tollner. You have led with your chin on this every step of the way and have been exposed. Your agenda to slash community service obligation payments and to sell assets off Power and Water has been exposed in this statement today. You are hell-bent on trashing what CLP Treasurers before you worked diligently to build. That is a disgrace.
The assertions in this statement have been proven to be wrong, and you then do irreparable damage to our relationship with major companies, globally and nationally, respected companies such as APA. Stop damaging the Territory’s investment reputation.
As Treasurer, you should be ensuring that environment is good for our reputation and what you have done is the exact opposite. I have watched the Chief Minister damage our reputation in his reneging on the deal to provide gas to Rio Tinto. It was alarming and I had hoped you would learn the lessons, in government, not to tread so foolishly in your relationships with major companies. However, here today we see a disgraceful statement essentially attacking the relationship between the Power and Water Corporation and APA over the pipeline.
You should be deeply ashamed of your foolish, clumsy and ridiculous attempts to attack me by trashing the reputation of a fantastic, highly and nationally respected company such as APA. In your hell-bent pursuit to attack me, which is wrong in fact, you are quite happy to trash the reputation of your own comrades and colleagues, being Barry Coulter. I hope somewhere, somehow there is someone in this government who can control the way this foolish Treasurer behaves, because he is doing grave damage to the government’s reputation with corporate Australia.
The paralysis of your government at the moment means significant investors must be sitting back now saying, ‘I cannot proceed with investment decisions in the Territory while there is a huge doubt about the government’.
Investors will be pulling back and sitting on the sidelines, watching and waiting to see whether or not the CLP can climb out of this current paralysis. It is already not a good time for the Territory CLP government, by your own hand and your own making, in the way you went around the bush in the lead-up to the 2012 election making billions of dollars of unfunded and un-costed election commitments that are now coming home to roost and causing grief among your bush MLAs, who are threatening to break away.
By your own hand, you are damaging the Territory’s global and national reputation through that alone, but now, in the midst of all that, you allow your Treasurer to make a misleading statement on the Amadeus gas pipeline. You allow your Treasurer to condemn a gas pipeline deal that was struck by the CLP in the 1980s, renegotiated again by the CLP in the late 1990s and which had contingent liabilities sitting at the end of it. No government in its right mind would cough up $57.8m when there is a gas pipeline infrastructure player in the market to stump up, buy and operate that. Your unfounded assertions that I, when Treasurer, was involved in, presided over and dealt with negotiations between the Power and Water Corporation and APA over ongoing lease and maintenance arrangements are wrong.
You are outrageous in your assertions, completely wrong, and it is genuinely concerning that you will muck around in the gutter this low to try to score a political stunt when you have already, through your own actions, damaged the reputation of the Northern Territory.
Stop damaging our reputation in corporate Australia. APA, and others, will look at this and be aghast. Have you had a conversation with Barry Coulter today? If you have, you would surely apologise to him. You are not man enough to apologise to me, and I would never expect that to be the case.
You are damaging, by your own foolish behaviour, the Territory’s reputation. I urge anyone on the opposite side of the House to please pay attention to what this person is doing to the Territory’s reputation. He has gone far enough. I felt he went too far with his decision to rush headlong into the split of Power and Water Corporation. Thank God the numbers in the parliament this week have led to circumstances where there can be a Public Accounts Committee inquiry into the actions of this Treasurer in his hell-bent pursuit to split up Power and Water Corporation. It will save Territorians hundreds of millions of dollars in the folly of Dave Tollner.
Stop trashing our reputation with corporate Australia. This statement attacking APA, which is a fundamentally strong, capable and honourable operator of energy infrastructure, is appalling. You attack your own without naming them. Anyone knows who negotiated the deal, signed the deal and renegotiated the deal. They were all CLP.
I make no apology for when I was Treasurer and presided over a decision not to waste time in a bidding war with APA, which owns 96% of NT Gas, which had a written commitment from former Treasurer, Marshall Perron, saying ‘The NT government cannot bid against you’. I make no apology for that.
Undertake better research before you lead with your chin again, and stop trashing our reputation with corporate Australia. You are a disgrace as a Treasurer. I hope that whatever happens in the CLP government in coming weeks, they will wise up and get rid of you as Treasurer.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Mr Deputy Speaker, what a wonderful contribution from the Opposition Leader. She has reinforced why we were all very concerned about her time as Treasurer of the Territory government. As I said from the outset, this statement has nothing to do with APA and everything to do with the Leader of the Opposition, who was the shareholding minister while those agreements and sales were being negotiated.
I spoke to Mick McCormack, from the APA Group, today and told him up-front we are not aiming at him. We see APA as a model corporate citizen in the Northern Territory and they should not be offended. He accepted that in good faith. APA has a fiduciary duty to maximise returns for its shareholders. No one is having a crack at APA.
The Opposition Leader would like to somehow deflect this to APA, but APA was simply doing its job, and is still doing its job. It has been a good Territory corporate citizen for a long time now. There are no problems there ...
Ms Lawrie: Have you told your colleagues what they say about you?
Mr TOLLNER: You like dragging Barry Coulter’s name into it. Clearly you are having regular discussions with the man. That is great for you, Opposition Leader. The reality is this is a dodgy deal you have done, or should have done ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! That is offensive.
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I listened to the Leader of the Opposition call the member not only by his name, which is a breach of the orders, but also refer to him as a ‘fool’ repeatedly. If she wants to be offended by language of that nature, then she should not use similar language which is offensive in nature.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could you please withdraw, Treasurer.
Mr TOLLNER: I will withdraw. I understand how precious the Opposition Leader is, precious little thing. It is okay to be very precious while you ignore the fact we are staring down the barrel of $5.5bn worth of debt and that Power and Water’s debt went from $290m to $1.2bn under your watch. But, she will be offended if I call her dodgy. All right, I understand that. She is thin skinned and probably has a glass jaw, but good on you, Delia.
As I was saying …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker!
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Treasurer, could you please refer to the Opposition Leader by her electorate. Thank you.
Mr TOLLNER: All right, the member for Karama – the war zone at Karama. Clearly, her skin is not that thin. She is quite happy to have her electorate known as a war zone. She should be as she is the one who termed the phrase.
APA is a good Territory business. Nobody has a problem with APA fighting for its shareholders and fighting to maximise return for the APA company. That is its job, and clearly that is what it was doing. No one can hold that against them. It is expected it will negotiate as hard as possible, but we do not expect the other side to simply roll over.
In fact, I suspect the opposition did not roll over on this; I do not think the Opposition Leader was aware of what was going on. The Opposition Leader says this had nothing to do with the agreement coming to an end in 2011, nothing to do with her government. According to her, all this happened way back in the early 1980s with Marshall Perron. It had nothing to do with the Labor government in power at the end of 2011 when the pipeline deal expired and the balloon payment was required. I doubt the Opposition Leader had a clue what the terms of the contract were. If the Opposition Leader had a clue as to what was in the contract she might be highly embarrassed.
Today I saw a media release from the Opposition Leader with an interesting line in it. She said it in her statement too:
- ‘It is a ludicrous suggestion that government should spend about $60m to enter the energy infrastructure business. That funding is better spent on schools, hospitals and police stations,’ Ms Lawrie said.
Hello! ‘Energy infrastructure business’. For the period 2006-12, or somewhere in that period, you presided over an energy infrastructure business called the Power and Water Corporation. Is that not energy infrastructure? Are power lines, wires and generators not energy infrastructure? You only see the pipeline that connects energy into the structure; everything else is different and has nothing to do with that pipeline. You have to ask the question …
Ms Lawrie: Not for sale, Dave. Not for sale.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, can you cut the interjecting please?
Mr TOLLNER: She says the pipeline is energy infrastructure but what it connects in to – the power station and the poles and wires – is not infrastructure, it is something else. Government has to own the generation business and all the poles and wires and everything else, but government should not own the pipeline that feeds the energy in to make the electricity and all that stuff. This is quite bizarre, and quite illuminating as to what type of shareholding minister we had during that period.
I listened to the Leader of the Opposition’s response. It goes from one ludicrous extreme to another. The suggestion that we are attacking the CSO – the Opposition Leader makes these things up on the run. Why would we attack the CSO? All we are suggesting is we separate the entities within the Power and Water Corporation. No one has suggested we are trying to remove the CSO. Similarly, one would expect when you are negotiating a pipeline you might look to see what is being negotiated. Not the Opposition Leader, who says, ‘No, that is nothing to do with us’.
She says there is nothing she does not know about Power and Water’s financials, but now we learn this does not extend to lease agreements Power and Water enters into. You have to ask the question any sane person does, about what other disclaimers she puts into place. ‘I know all about the financials, but I do not know how they accumulated this debt. I know all about the financials, but I do not understand why the government is worried about putting $150m of taxpayers’ subsidies into that organisation. I know all about the financials, but I cannot believe anyone suggested we did not get a good deal on that pipeline.’
You have to understand this deal the Opposition Leader knew nothing about …
Ms Lawrie: Barry Coulter negotiated.
Mr TOLLNER: That is right, Barry Coulter did it all. It was not the Opposition Leader at all. Barry Coulter did the deal. The deal he did is now with us for another couple of decades. The shareholding minister, when this deal was done, knew nothing about it because it was a lease and not the financials. She knew all about the financials but nothing about the leases.
Ms Lawrie: Were we meant to buy a pipeline for $63m?
Mr TOLLNER: Goodness me, Mr Deputy Speaker, could I draw your attention to the Opposition Leader? I sat quietly for a good 30 minutes of being called every name under the sun, having the vilest statements made about me and I did not interrupt once.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could the Opposition Leader please refrain for at least the next three minutes? Thank you.
Mr TOLLNER: In any case, every day that goes by the former government becomes more exposed. We have the waterfront fiasco, the prison fiasco – Labor’s great monument the prison Mahal as our Attorney-General refers to it. They will spend $1.8bn on a prison before it is done, great stuff. We have the dodgy Stella Maris deal. We have the AMS deal where they flushed money down the toilet; $70m with the government AMS system and close to $60m with the Power and Water Corporation AMS deal. We now have this pipeline deal. It seems every day we uncover something else about the former Treasurer, and you only have to look at the budget books to understand the damage the former Treasurer did to the Northern Territory.
I give Syd Stirling credit. He managed to keep things under control while he was there, and you can see the way things percolate along the line. The CLP was in government, then there was a change of government and Labor and Delia came in and bang! Up goes the debt, up goes the spending.
Ms Lawrie: Did the global financial crisis not happen?
Mr TOLLNER: The global financial crisis was a big green light – I forgot about that – for the Opposition Leader to rack up potentially $5.5bn worth of debt. Gee whizz, is it not lucky the global financial crisis came when we had the Opposition Leader holding the bank account? She was well and truly prepared to get as much money out the door as possible.
What a great comeback line: ‘the global financial crisis’. Everything was puttering along just fine and then the global financial crisis came. ‘I didn’t have a choice. I had to spend money as hard as I could. That is why there was the AMS stuff up, why we tried to hand over Stella Maris to our dodgy mates in the unions, why I had to build a monument to crime in Howard Springs in the member for Nelson’s electorate and why we blew almost $1bn of taxpayers’ money on a waterfront the private sector was prepared to build. It is also why we could not buy a pipeline so we would own a pipeline connected to our government owned power station, connected to our government owned transmission system, retail businesses and water and sewerage services.’
There were all those things, but somehow a pipeline, in that equation, should not be owned by government. They think it is the one thing that should not be owned by government because it is a pipeline not the other part of the business. I find the Opposition Leader’s response laughable. You will not be able to hide on this one, Opposition Leader. There is more to come on this, and every day more comes out about your failed management of Territory government finances.
I commend the statement to the House.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
MOTION
Nightcliff Island
Nightcliff Island
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I condemn this government and the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment for:
granting a five-year Crown lease for 98 ha of Darwin Harbour without going to community consultation about the concept of a man-made residential island
we call on the minister to stop moves to develop a residential island in our pristine harbour and accept that our community values that Darwin is a city built around a uniquely beautiful harbour.
I acknowledge those community supporters here tonight to hear me speak. I would also like to pay special respect to the traditional owners, past and present. This motion says Nightcliff island is wrong. There is so much angst in our community about the proposed development of Nightcliff island in our harbour. It is unprecedented, from all walks of life and from people of all different backgrounds. It is from people who may traditionally care about the environment, through to those who are suddenly realising how beautiful our mangroves are, and they all call on you to stop this proposal now.
So much about this project is unknown, but we know your government has issued a lease over 98 ha in Darwin Harbour off the coast near Coconut Grove, Nightcliff for the purpose of feasibility drilling for a residential island. This is immediately offshore to my electorate, and has raised great concern within our community. When I questioned you in this House you tried to pretend the island has nothing to do with you. I quote from Hansard from 18 February:
- The first thing is what are we actually talking about?
You then went on to say:
- I am excited there are developers with the confidence in the Northern Territory to want to develop something spectacular, something iconic, something …
I note Chief Minister Giles has been similarly positive about the proposal. On 4 February this year, on ABC radio, he described it:
- If you are thinking about the concept, this visionary concept …
Minister, our community is very concerned that you can be so dismissive of our views to issue a Crown lease and do not even bother to talk to us, and you then talk up the proposal.
The Northern Territory government has created the Crown lease for this project in open space in our harbour. People thought this space would be regarded as special and would never be developed. We understand sometimes developments are proposed on land, but the harbour? It seems more crazy than true; it is open space.
Under the Planning Act land includes land covered by water, and will include the sand flats and tidal areas at Nightcliff off Coconut Grove. Currently, this land is zoned public open space under the NT Planning Scheme. The scheme dictates what use and development is allowed on certain areas of land. In the case of land zoned PS, the scheme states that:
- The primary purpose of Zone PS is to provide public areas for recreational activity
Development should be limited to that which is for public use and enjoyment, consistent with the recreation opportunities of the land, and has minimal adverse impact on adjoining or nearby property.
Under section 52 of the act, the Development Consent Authority must not consent to a proposed development if it is of the opinion a proposed development is contrary to the scheme provision.
I could not find anything more far-fetched than an island with no environmental considerations. Clearly, a residential development would be contrary to the scheme provision relating to public open space, and this is the widely held view in my community.
The current zoning of the land does not allow for residential development unless an exceptional development permit is granted. Therefore, any proposal for a mixed residential and commercial development would require an amendment to the zoning the land. There is a clear process allowing for amendments to be made to the NT Planning Scheme to rezone land. However, this clear process needs to be followed, something that has not been done to date.
All we have seen is creation of a Crown lease and drilling taking place on the lease. There has been a complete absence of consultation on this project by the developer, the government, by anyone. The most consultation I have seen is from our community, from primary school students surveying their street. It is appalling. Our community is seeking answers on this project.
Local residents have continued to approach me with numerous questions and concerns about the proposed Nightcliff island project. People are concerned the government has kept them in the dark to date and has not provided any information on what this project entails. This project has the potential for a massive impact on the Nightcliff area and the people who live there. The developer has been conducting geotechnical drilling to determine feasibility. The developer has said:
- As part of our planning, we are doing geotechnical investigations. This involves using two barges to gather core samples of the rock and soil under the sea bed that will determine the suitability of the geotechnical conditions for the concept.
The statement went on to say:
- Residents will see two 12-metre barges, one carrying the drilling rig and the other a support vessel.
To do this drilling, the government created a lot and approved a Crown lease for the developer to test this area. It is not clear on what basis the developer was granted this five-year lease before Christmas last year. Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment, you still have not explained on what authority the lease was issued, who made that decision and if this is still the case.
In regard to consultation, I recently conducted a community survey and hundreds of people responded. Around 75% of people said they had not heard of Nightcliff island before it hit the media and 88% said there was not enough community consultation before drilling started. This is a clear failure of the government to do enough for the community before it signed away the lease to drill.
I find it more incredible that acting Lands and Planning minister, minister Elferink, believed a public notice in the newspaper days before work was to commence met the lease conditions requiring public consultation engagement before any works commence. In January, the acting minister said developers had consulted and engaged because they had:
- … put a notice in NT News classifieds to advise of the forthcoming drilling as legally required.
That is not consulting with the community. We did not even have the opportunity for a traditional planning process. There were no pink signs, no yellow signs, nothing. There was an ad in the paper, required by law for drilling safety, and that was it, drilling took place.
The Nightcliff community wants to ensure no shortcuts have been taken. It is time for the CLP government to come clean and let the community know what you have agreed to. It is understood a condition of the Crown lease granted by the government is a requirement for community engagement and consultation before works begin in the leased area. There has been no consultation. No one believes one ad in the newspaper amounts to consultation.
The government set up the Planning Commission with a commitment to engage the community at the earliest stage. This is not happening with this project. The local community is being left in the dark.
Minister, this massive island development in our harbour is not even on your own Greater Darwin Land Use Plan. Is it a case of the CLP government cutting red and green tape and cutting corners to fast-track development? It certainly feels so. Consultation to date has been non-existent, and that is not right. Territorians deserve to be treated respectfully and have their views heard. You need to allow this to take place. When will there be meaningful consultation about what could be proposed?
The consultation should be about if we want an island off our foreshore not if it is possible, then if we want it? The conversation should be ‘if’ first. The process should not allow a lease or drilling without an environmental impact assessment.
Over the two months since, there has been no consultation. I raised this matter earlier in the year. Minister, you said the real issue is:
I am over the moon that we have a developer with the confidence to do business in the Northern Territory, and faith in the processes this government has in place.
Minister, you are asking us not to worry, to have faith in the process. We do not have faith.
In stark contrast the head of the EPA, Bill Freeland, said geotechnical drilling is needed before a proper environmental assessment can be made:
- The kind of impacts that occur are trivial, and truly it does not warrant any form of environmental impact assessment at all.
We saw drilling in the harbour without any environmental assessments. The government has confirmed the feasibility test in Darwin Harbour was not subject to environmental impact analysis since the EPA has determined it did not require any environmental impact analysis. All these actions have occurred in secrecy without any engagement or consultation with the community.
Tonight the government needs to assure the community there are robust processes to assess this project. To do that, you need to be open and accountable. To date there has been a complete absence of this. Local residents, rightly so, are extremely concerned. From the people who completed my community survey, 91% said they want more information and 87% are against the proposal. A total of 82% are against residential developments in Darwin Harbour altogether. Minister, you need to listen. A small community survey has such a strong outcome. People do not want our harbour changed. Minister, you are not listening. You listened on Elizabeth Dam and pulled it after a critical 7.30 Report. Can you listen to our community on these concerns?
I joined many local people last Sunday afternoon at the area where the island is proposed. People played cricket, ran around and enjoyed themselves. Kids played, dogs bounded around. This happens in this area on any day during low tide. Minister, this is our open public space, why do you feel it has to be filled with an island? I, and my young family, love spending time on the beach, wandering around, carefree, enjoying nature and spending time together. Part of the reason we live in Darwin is to access that within the heart of our city. I know hundreds of Nightcliff residents who also enjoy relaxing in the area. In fact, thousands come from all over Darwin, particularly on weekends, to enjoy it. You are threatening to change our way of life without meeting us. There was no consultation, no conversation, just the granting of a lease to a private developer and pretending it is all okay.
Minister and Chief Minister, this is not okay. It is clear there is a lot of angst in our community about this proposal because so much is unknown. There was no consultation around issuing the Crown lease and allowing the feasibility testing to take place without any environmental assessment. In addition to granting the lease, the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment granted the proposal significant development status and it is being referred to the NT Planning Commission.
The NT Planning Commission quietly released its Towards a Greater Darwin Regional Land Use Plan late last year. Nowhere in the supposedly forward thinking plan for our city is there any indication of an island in our harbour. How does the island link to other proposals in the plan? Will we see more islands in our harbour? Is this the first of many? These are some of the many unanswered questions because you are refusing to talk.
The project has the potential for a massive impact on the Nightcliff area and the people who live there. As the local member, I have sought feedback from residents. I invited residents to join me at a meeting last month and we discussed what we had been told and asked for more information. What does the planning process involve? Listen to the concerns of our community. At that meeting, residents who participated unanimously opposed the building of an island in Darwin Harbour for many reasons. People asked several questions about the proposal which, to date, remain unanswered.
Minister, as well as the social impacts there are huge environmental impacts. This island will impact on our mangroves. Mangroves are a crucial part of our ecosystem and important to the health of our harbour. I took the time to walk through those mangroves with an expert to learn about the different species. It is a beautiful place. We have eucalyptus mangroves. It is a very sandy area, different to traditional mangroves. To have that in our backyard is so important.
If this island is built experts assure me those mangroves will die. They are an important habitat for birds, mammals and fish by providing a breeding place and giving protection. Mangroves improve water quality by filtering pollutants, stabilise and improve the soil and are key to protecting our shoreline from erosion, something we are grappling with in other areas but not this area.
If you listen to the experts, minister, mangroves are best left untouched. The only time mangroves become a problem is when they are disturbed. This is why Darwin Harbour mangroves are protected under the Northern Territory Planning Scheme. It is obvious the mangroves will be disturbed should the island proceed. Damaging the mangroves will not help us ensure our harbour is healthy and will show your government is not serious about protecting our natural environment.
Another question I am asked regularly by local residents is around natural disasters and what preparations would be made with an island development. This Wet Season we saw particularly high tides and strong winds. We did not even see a cyclone, just high tides and strong winds. We saw havoc along our bike paths and foreshore coastal erosion. If we had an island, how would this impact it? Would development of the island impact along the coastal area? There are currently primary and secondary storm surge zones in Nightcliff and Coconut Grove. If an island is built would this change the storm surge zones? Would that impact on homeowner insurance premiums? These are just some of the questions.
What consideration has been given to homeowners in the area whose properties may move from the secondary surge zone to the primary surge zone due to the island development? They would be financially affected through higher insurance premiums. Would they be compensated for the additional cost? Who would compensate them, the government or the developer?
The extreme weather conditions of this Wet Season have shown this area is vulnerable to flooding and erosion. They are very real concerns, yet no one from government is explaining to the community how this will work. These are the questions our community is asking. If the island is built, it will have impact on tidal flows so you will not know what will happen, even if you think you are prepared. Silt will build up in certain areas and we might see midge problems we have not seen previously. These are the questions from our community. People feel threatened by the island.
Talking about the social impact, anyone who lives in the Nightcliff, Coconut Grove or Rapid Creek area is already dealing with extra traffic. Traditional large blocks are being developed; there are sites where apartment towers are still being built. These are things we have to deal with and best plan for, but we cannot cope with 3000 extra people from an island flowing through our community every day. It is unrealistic. Every year our streets become busier. It takes residents longer to turn on to Progress Drive and get off Nightcliff Road onto Trower and Bagot Roads.
An additional 3000 residents would put pressure on existing roads, water and sewerage infrastructure. Responsibility for maintaining and upgrading those assets rests with the NT government. What scoping work is being done on the financial implications of those works? Who will cover that?
Our community is full. Nightcliff Primary School is one of the biggest primary schools in Darwin. Our childcare centres are full, even Woolworths. There is no quiet time anymore; you cannot sneak down after lunch on a Saturday to get a parking spot. It is busy and this infill will put more pressure on our suburb. We cannot cope with 3000 more people, I cannot stress that enough. Where will the roads to get 3000 people off an island go? Where will these people flow through? Will they flow through the beautiful, peaceful Ostermann Street and Martin Crescent? Will they flow down Progress Drive, which is already backed up? These are the questions and concerns our community has and we have the right to know why the government has proceeded with this approval without explaining the project to residents or considering its potential impact on our harbour.
Minister, I urge you to speak tonight in this Chamber. Take the time to let our community know what is happening; explain the process to date. Everyone in the community is concerned. I have been contacted by numerous people expressing their views, concerns and dismay at the lack of information.
I have previously spoken in this House about a young primary school student, Bella, who lives in Coconut Grove, who letterboxed her neighbours. It is important enough to raise again. She is so concerned about the proposal. She has no idea what it means for her community, but she knows it is not good. She took the time – a primary school student letterboxed. She can consult, yet we see nothing from the minister and the Chief Minister.
There have been a number of community events with residents who have concerns with this proposal. They have rallied to show their support against the proposal of an island in our harbour. If this was Sydney Harbour it would be making international headlines, so it is not acceptable to try to sneak it past us. Granting a lease to explore the feasibility of an island in Sydney Harbour would be on the front page of every paper and news bulletin. You have previously implied we need to be calm.
In Question Time on 18 February 2014 you said:
- Every building in the CBD would have had drilling to look at the substructure to see whether or not it would stack up – whether it would be feasible …
This is public open space, a part of our harbour. People find it unbelievable there is a proposal to build an island there. It is not an inner city block we are looking at developing. It is not another area of our city which might be questionable; it is part of our harbour.
You claim it is just an idea, but this shows you do not understand the magnitude of what is being explored. I am also concerned, as are many others in the Darwin community, about time. We have not had proper consultation or time to hear the full range of views. We know many families of the broader Larrakia nation are concerned about the way this development proposal is unfolding, the potential consequences of development on the Nightcliff tidal flats and, more widely, the Nightcliff foreshore which defines so much, including a very rich Indigenous culture and history. Our foreshore and our harbour define our city.
I have had early discussions with members of the Larrakia community and am to meet with more residents of Minmarama Park and the Gwalwa Daraniki Association, which holds the perpetual Crown lease over the Kulaluk/Minmarama residential area. We need to ensure the views of all Larrakia people are expressed, and for the broader Darwin community to better understand the range of views held by the Larrakia about the development.
Some people I spoke to expressed concern about the way a five-year community purpose lease was awarded to the Halikos Group, seemingly ‘on the quiet’. They have also expressed concern about the government’s position that community engagement requirements under the lease have been met by the developers because they placed ads in the paper and that was all.
Like many others, they find it incredible the CLP government accepts this narrow view, and worry about the implications of other development proposals. Many people who have spoken to me about the Nightcliff island development are concerned about the possible impacts on the open space they use. Larrakia people still go there to hunt and explore the bays; there are cultural values. There is also the landscape of Ludmilla Bay.
For example, the Kulaluk fish trap is an example of where these views have not been taken into account. I know this because I had a briefing with your office – the one briefing I have had and the only representation our community has had with your government about this proposal. As a starting point, I questioned if anyone had spoken to the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority. If I was the minister and someone said, ‘Here, sign this for a five-year lease to look at building an island’, I would ask if they had spoken to the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority. Nobody has. The first step would be to speak to people and ask questions. We must listen to people who have spent hundreds of years living with our harbour.
One of the reasons we choose to live in the Top End is because of our harbour. We enjoy walking along the foreshore, having a barbecue with the family, watching the electrical storms roll in – like last Sunday – or getting out in the tinny and fishing. It is a beautiful harbour, and people enjoy it.
Talking of fishing, this proposal would greatly impact on fishing, and that is important to people who either take fishing seriously or, if you are like me, a little less seriously. I still like to get out in the boat and enjoy some family time. Whether you are a keen angler or someone who just enjoys time in the boat, this island will impact on you and your harbour. Dugongs, dolphins, fish, the mangroves and the water will be impacted.
Governments are meant to work for and with people, but your government is not. You are not meant to create risk, but that is what your government is doing by looking at a proposal for an island in our harbour. It is wrong for so many reasons. There are environmental and social reasons and the impact will be huge.
It is important to look at Cairns and what has happened with mangroves there. It is a good case study to show us what not to do. Prior to the establishment of the sugar cane farm in the 1970s, much of the site at East Trinity was a tidal zone dominated by mangroves and salt marsh. A wall was constructed, flood gates put in and, in the meantime, the tidal water was eliminated which meant the natural water table disappeared. More than 30 years later, after much clearing, re-contouring the environment and drying the marine muds, extensive areas have acid and sulphate in the soil and Cairns is spending millions of dollars trying to fix the problem. Its natural environment has changed forever because some mangroves were removed.
There has had a huge impact on Cairns’ fish records and fish stocks have depleted because of this. These are some of the lessons that should be learned, and we should not make the same mistakes. We only have to look to the canal estates of the Gold Coast. We should get it right in our harbour; it is a pristine environment. We have the chance to have a capital city on the edge of a beautiful harbour and to live in harmony.
In New South Wales a moratorium has been placed on new canal estates; they will not happen because they can adversely affect the environment. Mangroves are accepted as an important part of a healthy ecosystem, and prohibiting canal estates in New South Wales is one way to protect mangroves. Some states are cleaning up the mess and spending millions of dollars trying to solve problems, while other states have placed a moratorium on canal estates. Here we are looking at doing something similar and it is wrong.
This issue was raised, and came to a head in January, with an ad in the paper. Many people have contacted my office, visited me, and social media has been abuzz with discussion around Nightcliff island. I would like to read some of the comments from people. You have not come to Nightcliff and met with us, but this is what people in our community are saying. There are people here tonight who would love the opportunity to pass these on in person, but that is my role as the local member.
Cathryn said:
- Leave it alone. Scrap the Nightcliff Island idea. If we need more land, open up more land, don’t turn a beautiful community asset into a private developer’s asset. Please.
Charlie said:
- The development would further destroy Darwin’s main appeal: the natural environment accessible to residents.
Belinda said:
- East Point and adjacent areas are considered ‘hot spots’ of biodiversity. The area is inhabited by rare … species that play essential roles in our ecosystem …
Nicola said:
Because this area is of immeasurable value left in its natural state. Development of it would turn Darwin into another Gold Coast and damage not only the natural ecosystems but also what makes Darwin a unique and beautiful place
Rod said:
- In addition to the social, cultural and environmental values, intact coastal habitats, especially mangrove forests, are the most cost-effective protection against storm surges and the impacts of cyclones.
These are some of the many comments from people who have contacted me concerned about this proposal.
A long-term Territory resident of nearly 30 years said:
- Our politicians and planners seem intent on destroying what other cities around the world are trying to resurrect. That is natural green spaces, green corridors, protection of habitat that enables the natural environment and the animals and flora in it to flourish.
I believe planners seriously underestimate the value of space, sky, sea and natural habitat and that they do it to the detriment of our mental and physical health and the cities’ ecological future.
…
To sacrifice Ludmilla Bay, the remaining mangroves, the habitat of untold numbers of animals on land, sea and air to another squadron of yachts, most of which will never smell the salt of the open sea, to housing that few locals could afford or want, is … not visionary.
I am worried that people are raising their concerns directly with me and they are falling on deaf ears with this government. For example, I know of one community member who wrote to you, minister, and you replied, ‘Whatever the outcome of the current geotechnical investigations, it is crucial to the future of Darwin and the Northern Territory that new ideas, developments, and industries be given a fair and open hearing. All proposals will be subject to community, environmental, economic and social standards, and the ecology of sustainable development of the Territory is something we also support.’
Minister, the ecology of the sustainable development of the Territory is supported by the community sending you a strong message: this proposal does not stack up.
Residents have the right to be respected and discuss whether they want an island. Yet, to date, you have not provided any information on what social and environmental impact analysis took place before you granted a lease for 98 ha of our harbour. Residents of Nightcliff feel they could not cope with an island community of 3000 people coming through their suburb. We are concerned about the lack of information on the proposal and disappointed your government is not being up-front.
Minister and Chief Minister, over the past few weeks our community has made it clear we do not want an island in the harbour off our foreshore. People have gathered outside parliament and in the gallery tonight to hear answers from you. Territory families and children in the area are worried about what the government will allow and what will happen. The overwhelming desire from our community is we do not want an island development. Minister, listen to the passion of our people. We are trying unique ways to get the message through to you but, to date, it has not worked.
I thank all from our community who have been involved in this campaign. It has brought the community together. Minister, Nightcliff island is not visionary, a community that stands up for itself is.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the motion to the House.
Mr CHANDLER (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Mr Deputy Speaker, before I step through the process for the benefit of the member for Nightcliff and others in the Darwin community, I thank the member for Nightcliff for her heartfelt contribution tonight. However, much of it was based on misinformation, because there is little information about a proposal put forward by a developer to the government. The fact it does not appear on the Towards a Greater Darwin Regional Land Use Plan says this was never a government proposal …
Ms Lawrie: Then rule it out.
Mr CHANDLER: … it is that new. I tell you …
Ms Fyles: You are the minister, rule it out.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Opposition members, the government was quiet during the presentation. Can you please show the same respect? Thank you.
Mr CHANDLER: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have faith in our processes and the fact any developer of something as substantial as that proposed would have to deal with three different acts of parliament – there are a number of processes to go through – and it undermines our processes if we rule out the opportunity for people who want to invest in the Northern Territory. If we take away that opportunity, what message does that send?
I have faith in the process, but I do not have faith when people spread rumours. I had a gentleman come into my office a few weeks ago, after speaking to the member for Nightcliff and attending a rally, who was concerned drilling in the harbour would somehow drain it. Scare tactics are being used and it is totally wrong.
The member for Nightcliff said mangroves will be destroyed. On the initial concept drawing I saw there was no damage to mangroves whatsoever. In fact, if there was to be a line drawn in the sand – can you imagine if the Northern Territory’s economy did not have INPEX? I assure you a few mangroves were destroyed at the INPEX site approved by the former government. You want us to draw a line in the sand that we will not destroy any more mangroves in the Darwin area, but it was okay for you. You have a different set of rules when in government to what you expect this government to do.
You have raised a lot of concerns tonight and followed up those concerns with the word ‘wrong’. You say, ‘It is wrong, it is wrong’. That is an opinion. I have spent time in the creeks around Nightcliff with Stuart Blanch from the Environment Centre. We went up one creek and it was fascinating; it is a beautiful spot. I mentioned, on the boat that day, that I could be there tomorrow in a boat with developers and they would have a completely different view of the same area. Does it make it right or wrong? It is just a different point of view; a different opinion.
You mentioned the number of people who live in Nightcliff. You are suggesting we put a gate just south of Coolalinga and do not let anyone else into the Top End. Let us not allow any development whatsoever. In fact, earlier today I looked at a couple of aerial shots of Nightcliff many years ago which showed a peanut farm and a lot of open space. It also showed a lot of trees and shrubs. If we used your rationale today, member for Nightcliff, you would not have a house because somewhere someone a long time ago decided to develop an area, plan and continue to develop. You would not be in a house; you would be living under some peanut bush if it was not for developers and people who had the confidence to invest in the Northern Territory.
I want to step through the process to date. The proponent has only been issued with a five-year Crown lease for the purpose of investigation and to undertake technical, environmental and financial studies only in relation to a proposed island reclamation development. The initial geotechnical investigative drilling works were referred to the Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority in the first instance. Any suggestion this has been a decision by me alone out of my office, and that we have done no work on this, is totally wrong.
In the first instance, it was referred to the Northern Territory EPA. The small scale drilling proposed did not raise any significant concerns with the NT EPA. The five-year lease contains conditions which require the proponent to notify the general public of any activity scheduled within the lease area. Accordingly, prior to commencing the studies, advertisements were placed in the Public Notice section of the Northern Territory News.
The Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment continues to monitor the proponent’s compliance with the investigative lease. Any proposed additional investigative studies will require further consideration under the Crown Lands Act, the Planning Act and the Environmental Assessment Act prior to commencement. Should the proponent wish to proceed with the development on the completion of the investigative studies it will be required to comply with all three acts. All three acts have provisions for community consultation, which the proponent will have to abide by. For example, a notice of intent under the Environmental Assessment Act; rezoning, subdivision and development under the Planning Act; and any notice of sale under the Crown Lands Act would require public notification.
In addition, the Crown lease issued to the proponent requires a level of community consultation to occur as it proceeds with its investigations. To greet with whipped up hysteria what can only be described as preliminary routine geotechnical test core works necessary to determine whether the project would proceed, is nonsensical. As is clearly spelt out on the Halikos Group website:
- Once we have decided whether to proceed, we would lodge a Notice of Intent that triggers an environmental impact study and development application.
It is timely to remind the House this long-established family company is well aware of the priorities of the Darwin community. It has been operating in Darwin for more than 25 years. Its testimonial reviews include support from the Alan Walker Cancer Care Centre, the Palmerston AFL facility and Darwin Middle School. When its next accommodation complex comes online, it will have supplied nearly 1000 much-needed rooms and serviced apartments in the Top End.
Labor took its eye off the ball with regard to the tourism sector and we see a lack of current Labor policy to stimulate the economy, create jobs and provide homes within close proximity of those jobs.
The Northern Territory needs homes. Cities are about linking people and jobs with homes and work. Our capital cities see 80% of Australia’s economic activity, yet we have inherited a chronic lack of accommodation across the entire range of housing options.
The former Labor government did not cater for homes for Territorians. Labor, in opposition, is loud with its condemnation of planning for new homes. In government, Labor did not encourage densification, preferring to keep its head in the sand rather than risk suburban votes. The families in the suburbs are now suffering. Their children cannot afford to stay, and Health and Education employees cannot afford to move here to live or rent, and rents continue to rise.
This is because in our capital city we have less than half the population per square kilometre than Sydney. We do not have enough medium density or choice. We do not have enough homes full stop. Some of those lucky enough to have a long-term residence are determined other peoples’ needs are none of their business. That is a NIMBY approach. As soon as an advertisement is made for a development of any scale, they take to the streets, to social media, anywhere they can gain an audience and yell at the top of their voices, ‘Not in my back yard’, and you are leading the way, member for Nightcliff.
They do not want the process of defining housing possibilities to commence: tropical terraces, cluster apartments around gardens or a pool, townhouses or new family homes. They do not want anything to happen. Yet, those making noises have their homes in what were not built up suburbs only a few decades ago.
Prior to World War II, Nightcliff – as the member well knows – lay outside Darwin’s development area. It was a favourite picnic spot and a peanut farm at some point. There was lots of unspoilt bushland with a few homesteads. Then – it is noted in the history of the area compiled by the historical society – increasing pressure for suburban development led to the Territory’s first private land subdivision in Nightcliff. All other facilities followed. The city was growing and will continue to be added to. Schools will continue to be built as our area develops. In June 1979, the Census showed Darwin’s population totalled less than 50 000 people; it is now home to nearly half of the Northern Territory’s entire population, just under 130 000. My point is, the development of Nightcliff mirrored the growth and development of Darwin, and must continue to do so.
Darwin continues to be one of the most expensive capital cities in which to buy property. Darwin has some of the highest median prices of houses and units in the nation, Darwin is witnessing some of the highest rentals in Australia, and overall vacancy rates are so low queues to secure anything that comes on to the market are frustratingly long. If Labor does not know this, having been in government for more than a decade, it needs to wake up to the reality of its legacy. It is a legacy of negative impact on housing affordability, and the availability has created a stressed housing market. A lack of planning by Labor is impacting every sector of our population, from the most vulnerable to those posted in the resource or Defence industries, who discover they cannot find anywhere to live.
Growth does not need to be negative. Growth, properly planned, contributes to a city that attracts and prospers. We need homes near our city hub. We cannot afford to establish new towns on the road to nowhere not connected to sewerage or power infrastructure, transport and, above all, employment.
We must understand the importance of limiting sprawl, increasing densities and there must be a sense of perspective. My department is the department of Planning, not the department of no ideas, and this developer has the buzz and bud of an idea. It may, one day, lead to a new engineered island suburb once a full environmental impact statement has been completed with full community consultation. Equally, it may not, but we cannot draw a line in the sand in any of our suburbs and say, ‘Progress stops here’.
The CLP government’s policy, clearly stated within Framing the Future, is a:
- Balanced environment
…
An environment that is well-managed, including urban design and public spaces.
In summary, the proponent has only been issued with a five-year Crown lease for the purpose of investigation to undertake technical, environmental and financial studies in relation to a proposed island reclamation development. The initial investigative drilling works were referred to the Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority for review. The small scale drilling proposed did not raise any significant concerns for the Northern Territory Environment Protection Authority. Any additional investigative studies proposed will require further consideration under the Crown Lands Act, the Planning Act and the Environmental Assessment Act prior to commencement. Should the proponent wish to proceed with this development on completion of its investigative studies, it will be required to comply with the Crown Lands Act, the Planning Act and Environmental Assessment Act policy and processes.
The Crown Lands Act, Planning Act and the Environmental Assessment Act will have provisions for community consultation, which the proponents will have to abide by, and there will be a notice of intent under the Environmental Assessment Act. If rezoning is required, subdivision development under the Planning Act and any notice of sale under the Crown Lands Act both require public notification.
In addition, the Crown lease issued to the proponent requires a level of community consultation to occur as it proceeds with its investigations, if it gets that far. The five-year lease contains conditions which require the proponent to notify the general public of any activities scheduled within the lease area. As we saw, advertisements were placed and complied with that part of the conditions. The Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment continues to monitor the proponent’s compliance with the investigative lease. There is a lot to go through before we reach the point of whether an island will be there.
I remember the negativity towards Cullen Bay many years ago. I recall speaking to – I will not embarrass them by naming them, but they were dead against Cullen Bay but today enjoy going there for a coffee. Today Cullen Bay is seen as a different part of Darwin; it is not everyone’s cup of tea, never will be. However, as a government, we need to provide choice for people. Not everyone wants to live on a 40-acre block, and not everyone wants to live in an apartment. Some people want 100 acres, some more. Some people do not want a three or four-bedroom home in the suburbs.
It is important, as a government in control of an area in the Northern Territory that is growing quickly, we have a good solid plan backed up by solid, robust regulatory practices to give confidence not only to the general public, but also to our developers with the confidence – and have shown the confidence for many years under both sides of government – they can count on government support, the opposition’s support and on community support when, and only when, proper processes have been followed.
As a government, we need to keep up with planning and growth in the Northern Territory. We cannot draw a line in the sand and say no one else is welcome. The greater Darwin area is a special place. We know it, we live here. Other people in this country should be afforded the same opportunity. People around the world should be afforded the opportunity to live in the Northern Territory. However, we cannot do that without good, solid planning or backing our processes.
Unless something is allowed to go through the process how do we know the processes are robust enough? If we say no to everything land prices and the cost of living will go through the roof, and people will not have the confidence to invest in the Northern Territory. If we do not allow things to go through the process how do we check if they are truly robust and pass the test? That test is where the community, government and investors have confidence in the government of the day. How do we test the processes if we do not allow things to go through them?
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, what an incredibly disappointing contribution from the minister. He does not get that we do not want, ever, a residential man-made harbour island. Our harbour is beautiful and iconic to Darwin. Nowhere in the NT Planning Scheme does it allow for a residential man-made island in our harbour.
You have not followed process because, if you had, it would have appeared in your regional land use plan which is currently under consultation as a high-level concept to allow residential development in our harbour. You did not follow that process. You snuck out a 98 ha Crown lease to a developer over Christmas, and the first the public knew about it was an ad in the paper.
We will fight an island development in our harbour. It is a disgrace you are even contemplating it. It is a disgrace you have not taken the time to engage at any level with the community to ask if this is what they see for the future of Darwin.
You talked about tourism. What do you think tourists find beautiful about Darwin? Do you think they would find residential island developments in the harbour beautiful? No. It is our pristine harbour and the mangroves around our harbour that are captivatingly beautiful. It is what we hold dear to our hearts. Yet, at no stage have you, as the temporary Planning minister – temporary because Planning ministers come and go and you are currently the custodian of the planning of our city – taken a moment to say to the residents of our city, ‘Is it okay if we consider a proposal to put a residential man-made island in our harbour?’
You have no right, minister, to breach that process. You should have put it in the regional land use plan if you want it as an option in the planning scheme, and it should have been consulted on first and foremost. However, you went to Crown lease phase without following the previous steps. You have no right to do that, minister. You are legally able to, but it is immoral and unethical. We will fight the island proposal because we hold our harbour dear. We will fight to save our harbour and the way it appears today so future generations of Territorians can enjoy it as we do today.
You lecture us on the development of Nightcliff. I grew up in Nightcliff; I lived in Nightcliff from 1970. I have seen the development and listened to the member for Nightcliff try to explain the pace and rate of development has reached the point where there are significant social stresses on the community. The road network is congested. I challenge you, minister, to live there for a day and try to travel in in the morning on that congested road network. It is getting worse and worse.
This is the cart before the horse. There has been no strategic planning into whether or not there is capacity for 3000 new residents in that area of Darwin. That strategic planning normally happens before you look at feasibility and provide Crown leases. You did not do it.
In government, developers came to us and said, ‘We would like Arafura Harbour. We want to carve up that beautiful public open space at East Point and put in some canal estates.’ We said, ‘No’, and it did not go past that. In government, when a developer came to us and said, ‘We want to put a residential man-made island into Darwin Harbour, Nightcliff island’, we said, ‘No’, and he did not get past that. Your government says, ‘Sure, here is a 98 ha lease. I will slip it out over Christmas when, hopefully, no one will notice. Do not worry, the ad will pop up in January. It is pretty quiet in January; get out there and do some testing.’
It is outrageous. Your behaviour has been disgraceful and, when the community says, ‘Stop, don’t do this, consult with us’, you do not consult. You do not visit the community, you do not have meetings with the community and you do not say to the developers, ‘Put your proposal before the community and explain what you are on about’. You do none of that and then try to say we need housing. ‘How can people afford to live here without additional housing? Do not draw the line in the sand for housing.’ What utter nonsense. Do you seriously think there will be affordable housing on Nightcliff island? I do not know how much they will go for, but you would want a good $1m for a unit there. Really! It is not the answer to Darwin’s affordable housing problem. To destroy our harbour is never the answer to Darwin’s affordable housing problem. It would be a blight on our landscape with our pristine harbour changed forever. Minister, where does it stop? Is this island number one? Do I head off to Old Man Rock at Casuarina and stick my favourite island out there? Do you duck around to East Point and put an island there? Maybe head over to Sadgroves Creek and say, ‘Hey, let’s put an island here’.
What strategic planning thought process went through your mind when you signed off on a 98 ha Crown lease? Did you stop to think this is what our community wants our harbour to look like? If you did not, surely someone around you would have suggested you consult with the community to see if this is acceptable. Minister, it is not, and you can paint us as anti-development all you like, but one of the reasons I was respected as Treasurer of the Territory for five years was for being honest with business people. I did not let people waste millions of dollars in feasibility studies if it was not an acceptable proposal to our community. Today a developer is spending millions of dollars on a feasibility study. If the proposal is not acceptable to our community – which it is not – why allow them to waste that kind of money? They could put it into providing housing elsewhere ...
Mr Chandler: You would not allow that either.
Ms LAWRIE: What are you doing? I pick up on the interjection, ‘You would not allow that either’. The same developers have built 130 C2 high-rise apartments in the CBD, all under Labor. We are not anti-development or this particular developer. We are anti-planning gone wrong where, in anyone’s wildest imagination, you think you can build a man-made residential island in Darwin harbour. It is beyond bizarre, absurd and unacceptable.
The member for Nightcliff was right. Can you imagine someone having this conversation in Sydney? ‘Hey, I’ll build a man-made residential island in Sydney harbour.’ They would be laughed out of town ...
Mr Chandler: They would never have a bridge.
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on the interjection, ‘They would never have a bridge’. What is that? It is a transport corridor link between one side of the harbour and the other. If you have a great vision and want to build a bridge across Mandorah and open up Kenbi, sign off on the land claim. We had planning for a population of about 100 000 over there so go for it – bridge, tunnel. The conversation has been going on in Darwin for decades. A bridge is not a man-made residential island, which is high-end premium real estate. This is not affordable housing; do not dress it up as affordable housing.
This is not opposition to terraces, family homes, growth or to support new housing in Darwin. It is opposition to a man-made residential island in Darwin Harbour. It is a line in the sand, in the mud, or to protect the mangroves; it is a line to protect our harbour and the way we are as a community.
This community is nestled around a beautiful harbour, we are so fortunate. You heard the member for Nightcliff talk about what this means to people. The afternoons walking along the foreshore are some of the most incredible memories of my life, growing up in Nightcliff, playing in the mangroves and chasing the mudskippers. I want our children to experience that. We lose so much in the name of growth; can we please not lose our harbour? Do not change our harbour forever when you have no mandate to do it? You did not go to the 2012 election saying, ‘By the way, I have had a conversation with a few developers and am happy to carve up East Point into Arafura Harbour and put a man-made island at Nightcliff’. You did not have that genuine, honest conversation with our community because it would have resoundingly rejected it.
If you think this is the voice of just a few, some fringe voices out of touch with what the community wants, I challenge you to consult with the community. Run a poll, pay for research, have some meetings, consult and you will find it is not the fringe voices of a few. We hold our harbour near and dear to our hearts. Our tropical, beautiful Darwin deserves to be preserved. It does not mean we cannot build houses and terraces and provide for growth. The bulldozers are moving through places like Nightcliff and Rapid Creek, redeveloping those old blocks at a pace we have not seen in a long time. Unit developments are going up on corners all through the place.
Gatewell does not exist anymore, it is unit developments. This is not about saying no development at all, ever, anywhere. You have completely missed the point if you think that is the argument. This is our harbour; you have no right, minister, to even consider a proposal and allow a Crown lease over 98 ha of our harbour, granted under your signature, without consulting our community first.
If you truly believe in this project, if you back your words that it is visionary, test it with the people because you are only custodian for a point in time. You have no right to irrevocably change our beautiful harbour and we will fight you every step of the way.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I understand people are concerned about this and I share those concerns. However, just before this debate started the Opposition Leader was lecturing government on the signals it sends into the community, and how reckless those signals would be. I heard the Opposition Leader talk about the purity of the harbour and say she holds it dear to her heart. However, it was she who, when in government not so long ago, placed on the table, if memory serves me – she spoke with great affection about INPEX, when it put out an environmental impact statement saying it might use gelignite to blow up Walker Shoal and dolphins might die as a result. She had no problem with it then, not at all.
There is a shifting of the sands in her position. She had a problem then because she knew she had to send a very clear signal to the investment world to say, as a jurisdiction, we have processes in place, and she referred to that in the debate immediately prior to this one. She said we should not send signals into the investment world where we hang a shingle on the door saying, ‘Closed for business’.
I am not defending this island at all; not for one jot am I saying this island must go ahead. However, if people want to invest in the Northern Territory we must describe a process to them. That process means they must jump through all sorts of hoops, including convincing the people of Nightcliff this is a good idea, because if they do not they will not get very far down the road because environmental impacts will have the people of Nightcliff showing their response. The development consent processes and other legislative instruments that apply will enable the people of Nightcliff to have input and demonstrate all the reasons this should not go ahead. If that is the case it is unlikely the development will proceed. You must also understand the plan circulated by the Northern Territory government, which does not show this island, is also an impediment to the island because the developer must also convince government, as well as the community, this is a good idea.
The argument from the opposition is to scrap process and say, ‘No, it will not happen’. That is the wrong signal to send. I do not know if this development will get up, but I suspect it probably will not because of the hurdles in its way, one of which is the people of Nightcliff. They will have every opportunity to challenge this through the processes the developer will have to go through. Let us talk about what is happening. As a general rule, miners, if they want to drill for a viable mine, do not have to put in environmental impact statements. They get an exploration lease, drill a hole, look down the hole, look at their core sample and say, ‘No, there is nothing there. It is no good to us.’ They put the core sample down and drive off. They are required to fill in the hole, which they do, and any remedial work is generally a quick tidy up in the area. One thousand such holes will be drilled before one mine happens.
Halikos has said to the government, ‘We want to scratch and look down the hole to see if we can do this thing’. The government of the day said, ‘We will not make any promises whatsoever’, and it must jump through all these hoops. On top of that, it must convince the people of Nightcliff this is a good idea, and I suggest at this stage it has not done a good job of that.
The Leader of the Opposition asked if we have spoken to Halikos. I have not spoken to John, but have with Shane Dignan. I raised the issue with him and said, ‘Mate, if you want to convince people of this you have to convince them of it’.
How it chooses to do that is its business. It is the company’s money at risk in the face of a government which has said it has to jump through all these hoops, as well as convince the people of Nightcliff this is a good idea. At this stage, all we have said is we make no promises. Halikos has to go through all the processes should it want to go down that path. If it is that interested and wants to drop a couple of million, or however much it costs to drill a hole to see if there is enough rock for its idea, okay, drill a hole. It has drilled a hole and that is all it has been permitted to do.
If it turns out it drilled a hole and found nothing but mud, and keeps drilling and finds nothing but mud, it will pull the drill up, drive off, and you will never hear of this idea again. If, however, it drills a hole and finds rock and thinks, ‘My goodness, as a result of our exploration the island is possible’, then a process starts. The process will be all the hoops Halikos has to jump through to convince government, the people of the Northern Territory, particularly the people of Nightcliff, the idea is feasible and usable.
If mangroves are the issue that will, through the environmental impact process, defeat the project. If the opinion of the people of Nightcliff is an issue, I suspect from what I have heard in the Chamber tonight through the people of Nightcliff – I presume that is the people of Nightcliff up there – the project will be defeated because Halikos will not get through the Development Consent Authority stages. If there are issues about the social impacts on Darwin – and that is a demonstrable social case – then the development will not go ahead because it will not get through those hoops. It has to go through the process.
However, the opposition is arguing to scrap the process and send a signal out that if you choose to invest in the Northern Territory it will be determined on the opinion of a politician somewhere.
Processes exist to give integrity to the government and the environment in which a government governs. We have a process outlined in mining legislation of what people are allowed to do when they explore, and what they are allowed to do when they develop a mine. Those processes exist so we can send a signal saying there is an understandable process to go through.
Courts have very clear and understandable rules and processes to go through so the integrity of those processes can be observed by the participants. The opposition is arguing for an abandonment of those processes. We have offered Halikos nothing other than the chance to scratch a rock and look down the hole, in the same way an exploration company will drill a hole and then say there is nothing there. If the exploration company wants to develop a mine, it has to jump through amazing amounts of hoops to reach the point where it develops the mine.
The Opposition Leader’s message is: do not look because we will not tolerate this in the first place. That is currently the position of the plan being circulated by this government. It is not in the plan. Should Halikos decide to pitch this, it will have to deal with the first stumbling block, which is the government’s plan.
However, Halikos has not been able to describe what this looks like because it will not spend a huge amount of money developing a plan for an island when it does not know what is underneath that potential island.
It has created a vacuum, and the media has filled it, the opposition has filled it and a number of commentators have filled it with all types of suggestions which, unfortunately, have not been challenged by the Halikos Group of companies. The vacuum has been filled. I open up this newspaper and the island looks like a crocodile with McDonald’s signs and all types of things on it. I open the newspaper next week and it looks entirely different because there is nothing in that space. What drives a lot of community concern is it does not know what this is because it has not been described and has not even been applied for yet. The only thing allowed is what a mining company is allowed to do – see if it stacks up from day one.
If it does, it has a bunch of hoops to jump through. I am certain the member for Nightcliff will engage in that process on behalf of her constituents if they describe it as a major problem. If that is the case, good on those constituents and follow the same processes available to everybody else so the facts can be heard by the Development Consent Authority or something similar. An island of this nature would have to jump through the EPA environmental impact statements; many things would have to occur. At every step there would be some type of public consultation. The EPA would receive comments from the Northern Territory Environment Centre in a heartbeat on this. The Northern Territory Environment Centre has already been front and centre with this and I do not doubt it would continue on that path.
However, as a government we cannot hang the shingle up and say, ‘Do not suggest anything outside the normal processes’ because we do not accept it. We say if you come to us with an idea like this you take all the risk. If you are to convince the people of the Northern Territory this is a good idea, you will have to take all that risk as well. It is not government’s job to sell this project, and I am not selling it. I have opinions about the project but I am not selling it. It is up to the developer to sell this project and demonstrate its worth to the people of the Northern Territory.
The company should promote this. We are the custodians of – the Leader of the Opposition used the word custodian – the process. The process must have integrity so we can demonstrate to the investment world we have processes in the Northern Territory which can be followed and relied upon. Every time the government side steps a process we erode the confidence of others to invest money in the Northern Territory. If we do it regularly that risk increases, which means people are less inclined to come to the Northern Territory to develop because they feel the processes are not available to them.
Sometimes there are controversial suggestions, I understand that. Those controversial suggestions will often scare people simply because of the nature of the suggestion alone, and people will respond with anger and irritation. As a government – the Labor government ran this argument as well – you have to keep the integrity of your processes secure. For that reason, the Leader of the Opposition, in the debate immediately prior to this one, was telling the Treasurer there are processes in place which must be protected because we need to protect the integrity of our jurisdiction in the eyes of other jurisdictions and people in the community.
She was running that argument in the debate dealing with the sale of a gas pipeline – the processes and signals we send out are very important. ‘We do not want to be sending the wrong signals’, she told the Treasurer, ‘on how we go about our business’. The next moment the Leader of the Opposition is saying, ‘Ignore process, set it aside. We will not go through process, we need to be reactionary.’ One of the great joys of opposition – I should know because I was there – is you are like the captain of a speed boat. You can change direction on the turn of a dime.
The problem – the Leader of the Opposition knows this – is in government you are in charge of an oil tanker. Every time you want to get that large ship to change direction you have to stand on the wheel, and it is slow to change direction. You then have to warn everybody about the direction you are taking, which is why you develop policies and processes.
If the Leader of the Opposition was genuinely concerned about the harbour, she would have said no to INPEX or, alternatively, put it at Glyde Point, which would have been a better solution. She would not have supported an EIS which said we could kill dolphins in the harbour using gelignite to destroy Walker Shoal.
If she genuinely believed in the harbour she would have this priority in government, but she knows the position of government is different. That is why, when she was in government, she supported projects which damaged mangroves in the harbour. She passed legislation enabling the INPEX project to go ahead, applied specific performance to INPEX so it got specific control of specific land which was destined to destroy mangroves. She had no problem with it then, but she sees an opportunity now. Whilst I appreciate the opportunity she sees, and the genuine concern of the people of Nightcliff, it is somewhat disingenuous to be a defender of process one minute and in the next debate say, ‘Set aside process because this is what everybody wants’.
People should have reliable processes to go through, and that is not what I am hearing from the members opposite. It is up to government to make sure processes are available, but it is up to the developer to jump through every other hoop. It has not started jumping through any of those hoops, but is scratching a rock in the same way an exploration company does when it is looking to establish a mine.
If I was a betting man with my nose pressed to the glass, I would wager this project will never go ahead because it will run into the resistance it has until now through the appropriate junctures and times when this resistance is informed. It will be informed because if you go through the development consent process you have to show your hand and everything you are proposing to the Development Consent Authority.
The Leader of the Opposition and the member for Nightcliff are representing the people of Nightcliff. The argument about having to protect the mangroves above all else is a little disingenuous, when the Leader of the Opposition previously legislated to see mangroves and reefs destroyed and dolphins potentially killed. The member for Nightcliff has not been here long enough to have the same legacy. This project has a long way to go. All the proponent has said is, ‘We want to be like an exploration company and look first’. Let us see what they can do after that and the process can then begin.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, what can I say? The member for Port Darwin, like the member for Brennan, is clearly Robinson Crusoe on his own lonely island if he believes and has faith in CLP government processes, which are clearly flawed. Nobody on this side, or in the public gallery who has been at the protest march today and at meetings – the people of Nightcliff – has faith in them.
I support this very important motion put forward by the member for Nightcliff and acknowledge the hard work she has done in representing her electorate; the people who expect her to represent their collective interests. Their interests are, quite rightly, centred upon the current CLP government not listening to their collective voices about how unhappy and angry they are an island developer is proposing to build on the foreshore in Ludmilla Bay. There has been a shameful lack of community consultation, with a five-year Crown lease granted to explore development of a man-made residential island on public land. Not only do I acknowledge my colleague, the member for Nightcliff, I also acknowledge the people of Nightcliff and the Friends of Nightcliff who are rallying to say, ‘This is not right. We do not accept this proposal, we do not want this proposal and we do not want an island.’ These are words the CLP government, and the minister responsible for the environment and planning, have either not heard or simply ignored.
I also speak as shadow minister for the Environment, a responsibility previously held, very capably, by the member for Nightcliff. I also speak as someone who knows what it is like to see your community under siege. I do not have to tell the House what is happening in Nhulunbuy at the moment. A mining company has somehow been able to extricate itself from lease obligations with a moment’s notice, without any pressure whatsoever exerted from both levels of government. The future is uncertain and under threat, with no rigorous social and economic impact analysis, but plenty of big talk and spin about how hard the government is working for the future of Nhulunbuy and the line, ‘Trust us, everything will be fine’. Yes, I understand and empathise with the people of Nightcliff, the supporters of Nightcliff and the journey those people are on. I have some insight into what it feels like to be under siege from a government more interested in working with business from the big end of town than the good people, families and Territorians it is supposed to be governing for and whose interests it is supposed to represent.
Before members opposite brand me as anti-development, let me be clear that the objections about the Nightcliff island project centre on a complete lack of consultation about development. It is an extraordinary development and hardly what I call visionary. It would be a man-made island, potentially home to 3000 people with a range of residential dwellings including a 14-storey tower, none of which anybody would believe will provide affordable housing. There is nothing wrong with vision and a future plan, but it is important it is a shared vision where people have input. This is a cart before the horse proposal. This is a five-year Crown lease granted by the Northern Territory government over public land, with a lot allocated and named as NT portion 7264, of a considerable size at 98.6 ha.
I attended a community meeting at Nightcliff on 17 February, as did a number of my colleagues on this side of the House. The minister chose not to attend. It was held at Nightcliff Sports and Social Club. The unanimous message was residents do not want drilling on their foreshore and do not want a man-made island, which would be home to 3000 people, at the front of their house. This is not because they were or are necessarily anti-development, but because people are gravely concerned about a number of matters. There are the negative environmental impacts, which include the prospect of sea surges, the devastation on the delicate coastal environment, the biodiversity of the mangroves and the threat to them and marine life. There is the impact severe tropical weather will have with a dirty, great big island sitting out the front. Where will I find the rigorous environmental impact study or anything resembling it?
People are rightly concerned about the impact on Nightcliff and its capacity to deal with an extra 3000 residents, as outlined so succinctly by the member for Nightcliff. They are concerned about the impact on road corridors and traffic flows in and out of Nightcliff, the capacity of services like sewerage, schools, other critical infrastructure, not to mention costs. What about the potential impact on property values? Where, in the government’s planning in the forward estimates, do we see the cost of this delivered? Where is the rigorous social and economic impact analysis, including the potential cultural and heritage impacts for a project which has been given significant development status?
Perhaps I missed it, but where is the report from the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority raised by the member for Nightcliff, which assures us on this lease on public and community land the current regime of drilling is not interfering with areas of cultural significance, or not drilling through or possibly going to build upon somebody’s song lines?
One of the clearest messages was people are angry because they have not been consulted and fail to see any openness and transparency in how the CLP government is working with key stakeholders. These are not just the people of Nightcliff but those of us who know, love and value Darwin, which is built upon the beautiful pristine harbour and waterways which surround it. They do not want to see a man-made island off the picturesque Nightcliff foreshore, fearful that if it was to proceed the impact – including environmental impact – would be significant.
According to the member for Port Darwin, who was minister for everything during the Christmas/New Year period, including acting Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment, people were consulted and engaged about drilling because a public notice was placed in the Northern Territory News to advise drilling was to commence over the Australia Day long weekend.
I heard the rather extraordinary ABC interview with the member for Port Darwin on the morning of 23 January, where he dismissed drilling activity as just ‘scratching a rock’, language he has continued to use on the floor of the House this evening. Nobody believes it is about ‘scratching a rock and peering down a hole’. Pressed by the ABC interviewer about a lack of consultation and engagement about the drilling program about to commence, he reminded the minister it was stated in the terms of the lease:
- Prior to commencing any physical work and activities upon the land the lessee must … (b) give public notice of and consult and engage with stakeholders and the public in respect of the activities the lessee intends to undertake upon the land prior to each period of activity upon the land …
As we know, the minister’s response was inadequate and defensive and he maintained a public notice in the Northern Territory’s daily newspaper was okay. Nobody agrees with the minister that a public notice in the newspaper counts as public consultation or engagement.
The granting of a lease in the absence of consultation has people up in arms. A public notice is not consultation, and certainly not about engaging with people in any way, meaningful or otherwise.
It is small wonder those concerned about the proposed Nightcliff development started to rally and take action – I have spoken about the meeting – through petitions and asking questions of the government. They raised concerns with their local member, the member for Nightcliff. They formed a collective. They have had public meetings at the Nightcliff foreshore, one as recently as the weekend. They had guest speakers and experts addressing them to highlight the threats to the delicate coastal environment which threatens the fabric of their home, their community and the beautiful seaside suburb.
I go back to that public meeting I attended in Nightcliff on 17 February. There were more than 100 people in attendance united and unanimous in not wanting Nightcliff island. This was not a lunatic fringe group or a group of troublemakers. This was a large group of residents; decent, intelligent but worried people who clearly articulated their concerns and objections and what they saw as a threat to their home, their community and the negative and irrevocable impacts on the environment and their quality of life.
The concerns of one man, a long-term resident, who said he had been to more protest marches in the last few months than in the last 40 years, struck a chord and resonated with me. He was standing near the steps of parliament around 4.30 pm this afternoon for yet another protest by those people, not just from Nightcliff but those Darwinites who support the efforts of the people of Nightcliff to protest.
At the community meeting in Nightcliff I was introduced to an environmental scientist by the member for Nightcliff. I was invited to be part of a detailed briefing with that scientist about the incredible and unmitigated risk a man-made island would bring with it, and an invitation to take a walk through the mangroves area in Ludmilla Bay. I accepted and spent an informative and illuminating time – close on two hours – learning more about the crucial role mangrove forests play in the biodiversity of the marine ecosystem environment, and seeing, firsthand, what is there and why it is important it not be disrupted. I learnt that 42% of Australia’s mangrove forests are in the Northern Territory. There are multiple species and a wealth of life and activity within them which protects the coastline.
I live in Nhulunbuy, one of the most beautiful and unique coastal environments in the country. It is pristine and healthy because of a low population and very limited development which might impact upon the coast, its mangrove forest and the broader marine environment. As you would be aware, we face major changes in our community in closure and, at some stage, the alumina refinery will close. My community, including traditional owners, is concerned about the environmental risks associated with closure and is currently seeking assurances the ramp down process will ensure and protect the pristine environment.
Whilst the government and the mining company are willing to provide those assurances, I contacted both the Environmental Defender’s Office Northern Territory and the Northern Territory Environment Centre to seek support and guidance from them. I would like to acknowledge both organisations today for the support they are providing the campaign objecting to construction of Nightcliff island. I place on the record my concern and apprehension about the current talk of cutting green tape and, at a federal level, the axing of the Environmental Defender’s Office funding, which will see this very important community legal service defunded by the end of June ...
Ms Lawrie: Shame.
Ms WALKER: Indeed, shame on the federal government for that short-sighted step. That gives me, and I am sure the people of Nightcliff, no assurance we will be protected from poorly thought through developments.
I acknowledge and thank the Halikos Group representative who provided a briefing to our Caucus in early February about the Nightcliff island proposal. I have no doubt Halikos is a decent corporate citizen, and the former Labor government, as the Leader of the Opposition outlined, has worked with it as a developer to deliver good projects in the Northern Territory. However, I cannot support a proposal which has yet to go through any rigorous assessment and planning, even at the most preliminary level. It is not just the geotechnical drilling which is under way, but consultation around the most basic of questions.
Do the people of Nightcliff and Darwin want a man-made island in the middle of Ludmilla Bay just a little more than 100 m offshore? It is not a hard question to ask. I am not anti-development, but we need to see sensible, sustainable and manageable development which minimises the footprint and allows people to be actively engaged in meaningful and transparent consultation.
I commend the motion to the House and thank the member for Nightcliff for bringing it forward this evening. I commit to continue holding this government to account and responding to the collective expectations of Territorians who have made it clear they do not want to see Nightcliff island progress.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nightcliff for bringing this motion forward and for working with the local community, which is something the government has not been doing. I support this motion which condemns the CLP for granting a Crown lease of 98 ha of Darwin Harbour for Nightcliff island.
One thing made clear through this debate is everything the minister has said, as well as the member for Port Darwin, is redundant if you have a sound principle of which developments you support in Darwin Harbour. If you have a clear understanding of what you support, you can say no from the start. This is something the CLP does not understand. It does not understand where the passion against this project is coming from, because the CLP has given permission up-front without consultation. It has given permission for the idea of Nightcliff island in our harbour. If you have clear principles of which developments you support in our harbour, you can say no to it straightaway.
We have that on our side. We confidently say no to Nightcliff island because we have a clear understanding of what we support in our harbour. The CLP does not have those principles. We are having this debate because the CLP has given permission.
The first step in any process is gaining permission from the landowner. If you want to build something on my block you need my permission; you cannot do it without my permission. The NT government has given permission and that is why we are having this debate. Everything the minister said about process and acts in his 30-minute speech is redundant if, at the first step, you say, ‘No, you do not have our permission to build Nightcliff island in our harbour’. Unfortunately, the CLP lacks those principles, which is why we are having this argument. That is why the people of Nightcliff are upset, why the member for Nightcliff has been working with her community and why people are campaigning strongly against this. They are shocked the CLP – they are probably not shocked – does not have the principles of not building in our harbour.
The CLP approach to Nightcliff sums up this government. It sums up its arrogance, its refusal to listen to Territorians and its failure to follow process. The process is: ‘Do you have permission?’ The CLP should not have permission. It sums up the disregard the CLP has for our environment and our community, and it sums up its dysfunction. It sums up how governments do things the wrong way. They make decisions before they talk to the public. They grant permission before it should be granted.
The first step is gaining the landowner’s permission. Our current government does not have sound principles around developments in our harbour. This project should have been stopped at the first meeting. As the Leader of the Opposition said, she would not have the developers wasting money now because we would have said no at the first meeting.
This process sums up how the CLP is deliberately trying to deceive people and keep them in the dark. If the CLP truly thought the public would embrace the idea of Nightcliff island, it would be yelling it from the rooftops. The Minister for Business said the Territory is open for business. They are trying to go through this sneaky process – it is not a process, we have not given permission. We saw the drilling; they are scratching a rock and something might happen. It smells, because if you had a sound principle around development in our harbour you would say no.
The member for Port Darwin said, ‘Well, we might say no later. We don’t know.’ You, at the heart of your party, support the idea of Nightcliff island because if you did not support it you would have said no and it would not be happening.
One reason the CLP is not consulting is because if it lets people have a say we know what they will say. They have told us clearly and told the member for Nightcliff. They have said it at public meetings and will keep saying, ‘The CLP has put the cart before the horse. It wants to get this island approved with minimum fuss.’ It will not work.
The CLP does not want people to be able to say they want this area of the harbour protected. An advertisement in the paper is not consultation, and to say it is the developer’s role to consult in this instance is wrong. It is government land. The government is deciding whether Nightcliff island should happen. The government should be consulting with the people and it is not.
The people will be heard on this. We have seen that tonight with the gathering outside Parliament House. We saw it on Sunday with the gathering at Nightcliff foreshore. We have seen it at public meetings the member for Nightcliff has held and other public meetings community groups are holding and will hold.
Someone asked if I thought the Nightcliff island decision was another example of the CLP being so dysfunctional it did not have its eye on the ball when the lease was gazetted, or whether it was a deliberate decision to grant the lease without any consultation. It was a good question and a hard one to answer. We have seen so many things where it is difficult to decide whether the reason behind a bad CLP decision is dysfunction, dishonesty or a desire not to consult and listen to the public. We have seen the government, time after time, ignoring the public and experts. In this case it was a bad decision trying to avoid public scrutiny.
Let us see where the CLP started with this project. In May last year, the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment asked the Planning Commission to prepare a report on Nightcliff island. The Planning Commission described Nightcliff island as a private development proposal for a stand-alone waterfront community. In its annual report, the Planning Commission said its primary role is to develop strategic plans, planning policy and engage with the community. The Planning Commission did not engage with the community in relation to Nightcliff island or in what they describe as a private development proposal for a stand-alone waterfront community.
This raises many questions. Has the minister received the report he asked for last May, and if so, will he release it? If he does not have it, why was the lease granted? Why did he or the Planning Commission not engage with the community? Why did they ignore the primary role of the Planning Commission? The CLP’s Planning Commission is failing its first test. The CLP appointed one of its own mates, a former member of parliament, Gary Nairn, to head up the Planning Commission.
It is clear his job is to make sure the community is not consulted; his brief from the CLP is to get projects approved with minimal input from the public. I had a similar experience in my electorate of Fannie Bay. The Planning Commission said it would seek public input into any urban densification of Darwin. This work has not yet been completed. The CLP has announced it will proceed with the urban densification of Old Sports House. I requested this development wait until the Planning Commission looked at it, but unfortunately, the Planning Commission decided not to look at the project. It staggers me the Planning Commission is looking at urban densification yet would not look at this project.
The CLP has tasked the Planning Commission with the project, yet has made decisions before the Planning Commission has done its strategic report. It staggers me the way the CLP is making decisions.
Look at the term ‘stand-alone waterfront community’. That means the public will be locked out; other waterfront developments such as Cullen Bay or the waterfront itself have public facilities and are accessible to everyone. This is our harbour, it is not a place for a private stand-alone waterfront development or an island.
It is interesting to compare the secretive approach of the CLP to Nightcliff island with the open approach of Labor to the Arafura Harbour proposal. There was huge public debate on Arafura Harbour. In government, we were always keen to hear from people. You should never assume people are NIMBYs; it was something the minister said that offended me. People have strong opinions about their local community and we want that. The government should not be afraid of people having strong opinions about their local community. They should not be tagged as NIMBYs, and objections to Nightcliff island should not be tagged as NIMBYism.
We responded to people’s concerns around Arafura Harbour, and, as the government of the day, we said no. The first step in any process of development on someone’s land is to get the owner’s permission. On Nightcliff island, the CLP has taken the opposite approach and awarded the lease without any consultation at all ...
Mr Tollner: It is a short-term lease to undertake an investigation.
Mr GUNNER: It is a short-term lease, an oyster lease, and nothing to do with Nightcliff island. The CLP has said up-front it is open to the idea of Nightcliff island; it has given permission up-front. We said no at the first step because if the landowner does not want a project to happen it will not. That is where the first decision is made. The CLP support Nightcliff island otherwise we would not be debating this today. Geotechnical drilling would not be happening. If you do not support Nightcliff island just say no, it is as simple as that.
The people of Darwin have been formally removed from the future planning of our city by the actions of the Planning Commission.
The CLP claims this lease is just for drilling to see if the project is viable. Nobody believes this. Why test if you plan to knock back the project? Will the results of this testing be made public? Will other developers be asked for ideas in this area?
We are talking about our harbour. The project is off the Nightcliff foreshore. Maybe CLP members are relaxed because it is not near their electorates. Maybe they are making a political decision about something in a Labor seat. It would be a shame if they are, because this is a legacy for our harbour. Members opposite: if you oppose this motion, you support the concept that people in your electorate will not be consulted on projects which affect them. The CLP is doing this without consultation or talking to people.
On behalf of the residents of the Fannie Bay electorate, I stand with the member for Nightcliff in supporting this motion. We oppose the CLP’s secretive approach to Nightcliff island, and we oppose Nightcliff island.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not support south Dubai. It is time the government declared it is the guardian of vision and showed it by saying this is where development starts and this is where development finishes. If you keep nibbling away at your vision it is gone before you know it. That is what is lacking in this debate.
I take up the point made by the member for Fannie Bay: you could have said no up-front. That is not sending a message to people that you are opposed to development; it is you believe in orderly planning and planning in the right place. If you do not believe in that, you end up with a dog’s breakfast of a city and a stuffed harbour. If you really believed the harbour was the centrepiece of our city – it is not in my back yard, I live at Howard Springs.
It is my capital city and it should be designed and planned around our harbour, with the harbour as the main feature we can protect, enjoy, tell people about, and show pride in our city and that we have looked after the harbour. If we keep nibbling away, we will not have a harbour.
I did not agree with INPEX going where it is. The Labor Party was in government and knows my point of view on it. I know what it did, and why it did it. People know I have always wished the centre of the harbour had remained a national park, like the Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park in Sydney. People in Sydney, in the old days, had vision. Unfortunately, in many cases vision disappeared. We have a gravel scrape, gas plants, immigration villages and workers’ camps there now. I am sad that was not kept as a centrepiece of the five city vision the CLP put forward, something I agree with. I am not anti-development, and I will get to that in a minute.
The government could have put this to bed at the beginning by saying, ‘Sorry Mr Halikos, we are not open for business in the harbour’. Why could you not have mentioned some of the sites the CLP pulled down in its day? There is still a paddock where the old nurses’ quarters used to be. What has happened to development there? Are we short of land or is that land untouchable? I have not heard anything from the government about development of that land. What about the old power house? What a sad day when the power house came down, when you see what other cities have done with their power houses. The CLP pulled the old power house down. It could have been used for development. All that is left is a concrete slab.
There is land available where the government could have said, ‘If you have a good idea, Mr Halikos, can you build something that will help the housing shortage?’ It will not be affordable housing. I have yet to see one private developer produce affordable housing in the Territory.
If that person said, ‘I have a plan to produce more housing’ – we are not short on land; we are not Singapore – we could say, ‘You have a proposal, we might be able to help you’. No, we have given a leg in the door to say, ‘We don’t really have a vision. We are a bit wavery, our vision is a bit blurry’, instead of saying, ‘We have a vision and are sticking with it’. It is out of bounds so the developer should look elsewhere.
That does not send a signal you are anti-development. It sends a signal you are a strong government that believes in proper planning processes and the harbour being the centrepiece of our city and surrounding areas.
If you were consistent, you would not have made an announcement, minister for Planning and also Chief Minister, you were dropping Weddell. You are saying, ‘This is only a concept’. Weddell, to some extent, was only a concept, but perhaps you dropped Weddell because it is a shaky place in parliament at the moment. Perhaps it was because of the Blain by-election. I hope you dropped it because of the science. You would have ruined an estuary of Darwin Harbour, but you dropped that because you had a vision. That vision is the plan that has always been there, the 1990 regional land use plan changed to the previous government’s regional plan, which removed the dam from Weddell and set aside the area for conservation. I think 95% of our mangroves are still protected under that plan.
I see some inconsistencies here. One may be for convenience; one may be because you do not want to upset people who donate a few dollars during an election campaign. I become annoyed when the minister talks about NIMBYs and progress. I have been a strong supporter of development of Coolalinga, which is an orderly development within the boundary of a district centre and is booming. I supported it. Some people might not have supported Maccas. I am not a great Maccas fan, but I will go there for a coffee or chocolate late at night. It employs 120 mostly young people, so I am supportive of that type of development.
Please do not call me anti-development. I am for development through a proper process which protects our environment and culture, which is not just Aboriginal culture. It is the belief I live in an area I love. I love the bush, the harbour, the Wet Season and the Dry Season. We live in one of the best places on Earth. I am a passionate rural person. When we talk about choice, I can see our choice being threatened by a lack of vision and by expanding small development into the rural area.
I also see a lack of long-term vision in relation to living a low energy lifestyle. That threat, to me, is the word ‘infill’. We shove people into little boxes. Yes, that might be all they can afford until the power goes off and they wonder what has hit them. Is there room for kids to play? Is there room for people to sit under a tree with the birds? The birds probably drop on you, but can you sit under a tree and read a book? Do we allow for that space in our thinking or is it just infill? I presume our planners recognise we live in a tropical climate in Darwin. We do not live in Melbourne where people can live closer together. The windows are shut because most of the year it is pretty cold. It is a different environment, so I start to wonder whether our vision is becoming a copy of an Adelaide suburb.
If I took a picture of some of the Darwin suburbs and put it against a picture of some down south, I would be pushing uphill to say which one was Darwin. It is saying, ‘Yes, we need development’, but in an orderly manner and that is what worries me. Does the government have a real vision it is willing to stick to? Is it shaky on it; too scared when someone has a good idea because they are developers and friends of the party? Are they too scared to say, ‘Sorry fella, you can’t do it’?
People often ask my opinion about developments around the area. I try to be honest and say in the end it is not for me to decide but the Development Consent Authority. I tell people that before they get a bright idea, especially if they know it could be controversial, before they do anything and before they go to the DCA, they should doorknock – ask people in the area what they think of the plan.
That mistake has been made here; they did not try. There were two mistakes, one being the government probably should have said no in the first place. If the government says, ‘We will think about it’ – if I was the government I would say, ‘If you think you have a chance, talk to the people of Nightcliff; knock on their doors and tell them what you are proposing’. Do not give them something wishy-washy. Tell them you want to put a 14-storey building up that no one can enter unless they pay good money. Tell them where the sewerage and water will go, tell them how they can access it and what effect it will have on the tides and mangroves. Give them some idea you are seriously interested in hearing the opinions of people in Nightcliff. If people said it was fantastic – I doubt it – but if they did, at least you did the right thing at the beginning. However, this does not seem to have started off that way.
I will go back to my first issue. It should not have gone this far, the government should have said, ‘This is our vision for the protection of Darwin Harbour. Sorry, mate, we are open for business, but here is the fence. This bit we will keep for future generations, the fish, the fishermen and fisherwomen, the aesthetic beauty of our community, and somewhere we can have a few human feelings.’ It is not all about dollars or all the other stuff driving economic development all the time. If we do not take into account we need places to enjoy to have a feeling of ownership – they belong to us not a private individual – if we start to take that away we take away some of the soul of people living in the area.
The government’s failing is not having a clear vision. Sorry, Mr Halikos, I understand this might be a fantastic thing from your point of view and I just named two places where you might be able to do it. Talk to the government and say this is not a good idea. We do not need south Dubai in the middle of the harbour. If your plan is worth pursuing ask the government for land. It will not be cheap, but it would be very expensive to put an island in the middle of the harbour. Why not invest the money into purchasing Crown land?
The old hospital site – I am not saying all that land should be developed into high rise, but it is a big piece of land. What is happening to it and the old power house?
The plans I saw for Darwin waterfront had land that could be turned into residential. It is not affecting the harbour; it might affect a few people who cannot see the harbour, but that is another issue. There are options. Mr Halikos, it is good you want to put money into the community and create jobs and housing, but do it in the right place. In the middle of the harbour is not the right place.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Mr Deputy Speaker, this motion moved by my colleague, the member for Nightcliff, is a very important planning matter in her electorate.
The member for Nightcliff is a fierce advocate for the residents of her electorate. She listens attentively to the concerns of families and businesses in the Nightcliff electorate and advocates on their behalf. We saw this today in her passionate advocacy for constituents who have expressed concerns about the impact of the proposed Nightcliff island on the environment, the amenity of adjacent suburbs, recreational heritage values and traffic volumes and management.
The proposed Nightcliff island is a huge project which, if constructed, will have a huge impact and implications not only for Nightcliff, but adjoining suburbs and Darwin as a whole. Many people from suburbs across Darwin have raised concerns about the proposal with members on this side of the House. Central to these concerns is the veil of secrecy shrouding the project and the total lack of accountability from the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment concerning this significant proposal. Given the scope and potential impact of Nightcliff island, it is a basic and reasonable expectation of the community that the minister would be up-front, honest and transparent from day one concerning the proposal. That is not the way the CLP operates and certainly not the way this minister operates.
In the run-up to the last Territory election, the CLP promised to be an open and accountable government. The CLP’s five-point election plan said:
If we don’t deliver, throw us out. There will be no more political deals … The only deal we’ll have is with you …
Let me repeat that:
If we don’t deliver, throw us out. There will be no more political deals … The only deal we’ll have is with you …
That promise will come back to haunt this minister and this government, and not just in relation to this project. The minister’s secrecy has done the proponent a great disservice. When geotechnical feasibility drilling for the project commenced, the residents of Nightcliff and Darwin in general had not been consulted, and had no information on what was going on in our pristine, beautiful harbour environment.
It is little wonder there was, and remains, a groundswell of concern in the community about the proposed construction of an island of 98.6 ha adjacent to our city’s beautiful foreshore suburbs. Why was there no information about the project? Because the minister, in the run-up to the Christmas vacation period, signed a five-year lease:
In relation to an island reclamation development on land, the subject of this lease.
It was in this climate of CLP secrecy about important land use matters that the member for Nightcliff, in response to representations from her constituents, arranged a public meeting to listen to the concerns of local residents and others concerned about the proposed island. I congratulate the member for Nightcliff for this initiative to hear the concerns of her constituents, a commitment to consultation that is not on the minister or this government’s radar. The meeting was held at the Nightcliff Sports Club and was attended by about 130 local residents and others either concerned by the proposed island or simply wanting more information, like the rest of us.
In addition to the member for Nightcliff, the Leader of the Opposition, the members for Fannie Bay, Wanguri, Nhulunbuy and I also attended this meeting, knowing the importance of this proposal. We have all received representation from our constituents about the secrecy surrounding the project and its potential impacts.
I will share with honourable members some of the points raised by those in attendance. While not exhaustive, they reflect legitimate community concerns exacerbated by the minister’s secretive approach to the proposal. People there said:
the development proposal is not consistent with existing zoning
residential development is not compatible with existing biodiversity, and
Others said:
the project is in a surge zone that could redirect water into residential areas
Others said:
we need a feasibility study to inform discussions on whether we want this kind of development
Had the minister accepted an invitation to attend the meeting, he could have addressed some of these concerns, but he did not front. Many of the constituents of Johnston are also concerned about the proposal and they too have been kept in the dark by the minister’s failure to provide any information about the proposal.
Many people in this House and outside know I am a born and raised Darwinian. I grew up in Jingili. I spent a lot of time at Rapid Creek, which I am very proud of, and something close to my heart is fighting for the survival of Rapid Creek and that area. What is also very important to me and my family is our cultural heritage, and the significance of understanding the meaning of certain special places around Darwin and the Territory.
During the 1970s, my mother used to take me and my sisters to the area around Nightcliff and Ludmilla Creek. As the member for Karama knows – she grew up in that area as well, and she may have been friends with my sister at some stage. We knew the significance of that area. My mother, with family members and Larrakia people, took me around those areas when I was younger to teach me the cultural significance of that specific area as well as East Point, Rapid Creek, and the whole of Darwin.
Some of my best memories, as the member for Karama said of hers, are walking around that area at low tide, listening to the stories, going hunting for crabs and going fishing when the tide was up. I have continued that with my children. As soon as my son was old enough to walk, I would take him to those areas and relay the stories and significance of growing up there and how important it is to protect the area.
Once they go they will not come back. That is something we in this Chamber must all remember: once they go they will not come back. It is not like we can get rid of Nightcliff island if it goes ahead and say, ‘We have stuffed this up; we got this wrong. Let’s rip it down and start again.’ The impact on the environment, the mangroves, the dugong, the turtles, the crabs and the fishing in that area will be significant.
I have listened to the arguments tonight and found that side of the House does not get it. They are walking over – the situation is you have allowed geotechnical drilling testing to go on without any formal process, none whatsoever. On this side, we are standing up for residents. The member for Nightcliff is doing a great job in sticking up for the people who voted her in. She is representing them, trying to get information from the minister for Lands and Planning. We attended a briefing and we thank the minister for organising that briefing. We walked away not shocked, but concerned and disappointed about the information we received.
I have queried this many times: I still do not get what an oyster lease is. I am waiting for the minister, maybe the member for Port Darwin who is listening in the Chamber, to tell me. There is an oyster lease over 98.6 ha of our beautiful harbour. I am still learning the shadow Lands and Planning portfolio, but I do not know what an oyster lease means and how you give that to a developer to drill in our pristine harbour.
I am more than happy to listen to advice from the minister or somebody on that side of the House who can tell me how you are awarded an oyster lease in our pristine harbour. I will cop it on the chin, but would someone tell me what that means.
The member for Nightcliff and I walked away from that briefing, and while we appreciate the briefing by the department and the minister’s office, we were disappointed and a little dismayed.
We wanted information. The member for Nightcliff has been asked many times, as I have at my office in Rapid Creek on Sunday mornings. I joined the member for Nightcliff at Nightcliff markets because the amount of concerned people coming in – we thought, as the closest electorate and with people coming to me as the shadow minister for Lands and Planning, I would go with the member for Nightcliff on a Sunday to Nightcliff markets. Rapid Creek compared to Nightcliff markets is a bit different, but we were continuously busy with people stopping to talk about Nightcliff island and the lack of information coming out.
That is the issue here. We are still fighting for information and why we are using our time on General Business Day to get some answers. I applaud and commend the member for Nightcliff for sticking up for her constituents and trying to get some answers out of this government, which is not coming to us or anybody else about this project. We have all received representation from our constituents about the secrecy surrounding the project and its important impacts.
We have had many instances of people, like us, not understanding how you are granted an oyster lease to drill a couple of holes and perhaps scrape a rock, as the member for Port Darwin famously said when he was acting as every minister over the holidays. I do not think those comments will go away, and I think you said it again today. All we ask for is more information ...
Mr Elferink: You had briefings. Were you not listening?
Mr VOWLES: We had a briefing and, like I said, there was silence ...
Mr Elferink: Did you telephone Halikos? I did and spoke to them.
Mr VOWLES: Thank you, member for Port Darwin, we can chat after. If you have things to talk about I am more than happy to have that conversation ...
Mr Elferink: You did not seek any information, you chose to …
Mr VOWLES: You have already contributed.
A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Standing Order 51: I ask that I not be interrupted.
Getting back to the motion, I congratulate the member for Nightcliff for bringing this motion to the House. It is important all our colleagues on this side of the House are listening and contributing, and that is what we want to do.
The minister’s secrecy has done a great disservice to the proponent, the people of Darwin and his reputation. I conclude on a point I made earlier in respect to a solemn pre-election promise made by the CLP:
- If we don’t deliver throw us out. There will be no more political deals … The only deal we’ll have is with you …
I commend the motion to the House.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Mr Deputy Speaker, a few years ago I was mixed up with part of the AACAP program – where the Army goes into communities building houses – as part of a parliamentary Defence exchange program. I dressed up as an Army man for a week and went to Borroloola to work with Army engineers building houses. My goodness, what a great bunch of people they are. It was an interesting time because it was when the river diversion was happening at McArthur River. There was a big public meeting and I remember it well. I turned up in Army clobber, in camo gear and sat at the back of the meeting, which was eye-opening. One hundred and fifty or 200 people were there. I think the former member for Arnhem was there listening and making contributions.
Brian Hearne, the then boss of McArthur River mine, was explaining the river diversion and the packages put in place for the community. Somebody jumped up wanting to ask a question. They asked Brian Hearne what he would do with all the nuclear waste the mine produced. He looked a bit gobsmacked and said, ‘What nuclear waste are you talking about?’ The guy replied, ‘The nuclear waste you are producing at your mine’. Brian said the McArthur River mine did not produce nuclear waste. This person jumped up and said, ‘There you go, lying to us again!’ The crowd was uproarious in its support for this bagging of Brian Hearne. I have never heard too many more bizarre things in my life ...
Ms Lawrie: What you are saying right now is bizarre.
Mr TOLLNER: You are probably wondering – I notice the Opposition Leader is back to her carping again, sitting on the sidelines doing nothing but throwing mud because it is the way she operates. You might ask what this has to do with this debate. I listened to the member for Johnston’s wonderful speech about the secrecy of this government. It made me think of that event. ‘There you go, it is all secret. You are not telling the public anything.’ Member for Johnston, there is not much to tell the public at this stage.
You have a developer with an idea to build an island. The developer does not know if it is feasible and has asked to test the waters to see what is on the sea bed and if it is possible to build an island ...
Ms Fyles: Do you agree with it or not? That is the question.
Ms Lawrie: Do you support it?
Mr TOLLNER: I do not know what we are supposed to be supporting or not supporting. That is the point of this motion. You say, ‘No, you can’t support that’. What are we supposed to be supporting? The proponent does not know what type of development it is building yet. We are told to rule out whatever is being proposed and stop it ...
Ms Fyles: If you care about our harbour you will.
Mr TOLLNER: ‘If you care about our harbour you will’. There you go, lying again. You remind me of being …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, withdraw that.
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw, Madam Speaker. I apologise, I notice you have resumed the Chair. I was referring to a meeting I was at in Borroloola, and a person jumped up to accuse Brian Hearne of lying. It was not directed at any member opposite; it is the accusation of lying, because you will not say whether you do or do not support an idea ...
Ms Fyles: Do you support an island in our harbour?
Mr TOLLNER: Goodness me, we do not even know what we are talking about. Guys are there, as the member for Port Darwin said, digging a couple of holes and scratching a few rocks to see whether something might be feasible. If it is, they might put a submission together for the government and the public.
We are in this Chamber on General Business Day debating something – we do not even know what we are debating, do we …?
Ms Lawrie: Yes we do, you do not.
Mr TOLLNER: No, you do not, because there is no proposal yet. A bloke has said, ‘I wouldn’t mind seeing if it is possible to build an island here, I don’t know whether I can or not …’
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 67. The proposal has been given significant development status and referred to the Planning Commission. There is a proposal and we are debating it.
Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, sit down.
Mr TOLLNER: You are running interference again, like you always do to give yourself some legitimacy. At least let us look at what is possible, what is not possible and whether they will or will not progress an idea. There is a process involved here: community consultation, environmental impacts, social impacts, traffic impacts are all assessed. For the luddites opposite, you might not think these things are taken into account when a developer makes an application for a development, but they are. At the moment, all it wants is a lease to legally drill a couple of holes and scratch a few rocks.
There are pros and cons of drilling a couple of holes. What crustaceans will we upset when we do that? If we scratch a few rocks, we might move something. I do not think the entire prawn fishery will die out from drilling a couple of holes. I do not see many recreational fishermen there in boats when I regularly drive past that area. It is not a fishing hot spot. Maybe it is, I am not an avid fisherman. Perhaps people go there in the dead of night and that is the time to be there. Do not hold me to account on that one ...
Ms Fyles: Do you agree with an island or not?
Mr TOLLNER: Do I agree with an island or not? What island? There is no island there. There is no application to build an island ...
Ms Lawrie: There has been an application. It is a 98 ha lease.
Mr TOLLNER: No, there is an application to assess the feasibility of an island. What happens if the mud is 45 m deep? Do we think the developer will build an island there? Come on! Perhaps there is solid rock a couple of feet below the mud, and maybe you can get some footings in there easily enough to build an island. It could come back saying that. We might have something to discuss when the developer says, ‘Yes, it seems quite feasible; we can do it. Here are some plans to look at. This is what we want to do, here is how we manage traffic and this is the type of development we want to put on this new island.’ Then you might have something to talk about. Apart from that, what do you have to talk about? You whip up hysteria, you have a bunch of people sitting out the front of parliament at lunchtime similarly ignorant to what is going on ..
Ms Walker: Are you accusing these people of being ignorant? Is that what you are saying?
Mr TOLLNER: Everybody concerned about this is obviously ignorant there is a process involved ...
Members interjecting.
Ms Walker: You are an embarrassing fool.
Mr TOLLNER: That is going out on a limb, isn’t it? Goodness me!
I look at how Labor does business in the Northern Territory. It is like the McArthur River mine river diversion. I have no doubt the person who asked the question about the nuclear waste was a Labor Party stooge and there …
Ms Fyles: These are not all Labor Party stooges, Dave.
Mr TOLLNER: Have all the Labor Party stooges cleared out? Is that what you are suggesting?
Ms Fyles: I did not suggest that.
Mr TOLLNER: It was obviously a Labor Party stooge. I saw what went on with Arafura Harbour; that did not get a look in. No one was allowed to present the idea. It was not allowed to go through a process because the government decided, ‘This could be a bit controversial down the track. We will scrap this before it gets legs.’
I saw how former Chief Minister, Paul Henderson whipped up hysteria about a building in Casuarina I could not work out why anyone would have objections to. He quickly gathered together a community action group in his office; his electorate officer did all the secretariat work for that community action group and it put the kybosh on a development there. That was all pretty damn good.
This is what the Labor Party calls community action, where you whip up hysteria around nothing; fabricate some argument and run it like something is happening. Arafura Harbour has me beat because part of that is in my electorate, as many people know. There have been development applications all around the Nemarluk Drive area and parts of Ludmilla, and all have been knocked on the head. The great threat to any development is storm surge. That is what irks people and is the big concern about why there should there be no more development in the Ludmilla, Coconut Grove and Fannie Bay area. No one wants development there in case they are all washed away by massive rain, a tidal wave or something flowing through there ...
Ms Fyles: Cyclones? Category one to five? You forgot about them.
Mr TOLLNER: Cyclones, that is right. A good friend and constituent, Graham McMahon, lives on Nemarluk Drive. He is a great bloke and I get along with him very well. We tend to disagree on some things.
He whipped up a little barbecue one afternoon and 150 to 200 people turned up. He had one of those pool skimmer poles you can extend out and he put a red rag on the end of it. He was talking about a 7 m storm surge coming through the place. He held this thing up and said, ‘Look way up the top there. Do you see that red flag? Up there is 7 m. Can you imagine a wave that high coming through here? We would all be wiped out.’ It would not just be Ludmilla wiped out, but the entirety of Darwin and Palmerston as well if we had a wave of that magnitude.
That was the reason for stopping the four blocks of units someone proposed to build opposite – on the other side of the road from residents in Ludmilla. He spotted me at that meeting and said, ‘Our local member is up the back. Come on, Dave, come down and tell the constituents what you think about this development.’ I was not ready for that; he put me on the spot and there was a bit of pressure from the crowd. I wanted to stay incognito. There was no staying incognito so I shuffled up to the front. He said, ‘What do you think about this?’ I said, ‘I do not have a point of view either way. I am interested to gauge community sentiment on this.’ He replied that I must have something to say, and I said I did and would not mind asking a couple of questions. I said to the people in my electorate, ‘Hands up everybody who lives in a storm surge area’. Ninety percent of the people at the meeting were locals, so 90% of the people put their hands in the air.
I then said, ‘All those people with your hands in the air, leave them in the air if you want the government to compulsorily acquire your house’. Pretty well every hand went down, except for my good friend, Graham McMahon. On this issue we are divided, but he knew what was coming so he kept his hand in the air. One or two others who kept their hands in the air wanted the government to compulsorily acquire their houses because of the dangers of living in a storm surge area. He said, ‘What is that all about?’ I said, ‘It sounds a bit like hypocrisy, doesn’t it?’ The crowd did not like that at all. I said, ‘It’s like me owning a really fast car and getting my kicks driving down the highway really fast. But, God help us if anybody else wants to own a fast car. You cannot because they are dangerous. I am allowed to own one because I already have one, but anybody else who wants to have one no, you cannot have one. It is all right to live in a storm surge area …’
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 67: digression. We are talking about Nightcliff island.
Madam SPEAKER: It is not a point of order. The minister has some flexibility in his comments. Minister, you have the call.
Mr TOLLNER: We are talking about planning issues, Nightcliff island and all that stuff. Many people in that are happy to live in a storm surge area; they love it the way it is. They like living in a storm surge area, but no one else is allowed to move into that same storm surge area and they will protest it every way possible …
Ms Fyles: This is in the middle of the harbour.
Mr TOLLNER: That is right; this is in the middle of the harbour. This is not where other people live, and you have already worked up a bunch of self-righteous outrage about the audacity of somebody doing something in the harbour where no one lives. No one lives there, therefore no one should be allowed to.
I am glad they brought this motion and debate on. We needed a bit of brevity today. It has been a tough day for a few of us and it is fantastic we can have a laugh with some nonsensical motion. We will all get up – you guys on that side are all very serious. ‘This will be the greatest environmental disaster to hit the Northern Territory and no one has been consulted. We will go to hell in a hand basket if Mr Halikos gets his way.’ We on this side can have a bit of fun. We look at you and think, ‘Look at them, they are all so serious. They all have this pent up outrage.’
You must have been cooking this for a month to get into the state where you get a crowd out the front. I can imagine the member for Nightcliff at the markets on the weekends or doorknocking. ‘We are having a protest next Wednesday on the steps of parliament. What do you think about this horrific island?’ It is not south Dubai, as our comical friend, the member for Nelson said. You can imagine how they have gone about this. It is quite fascinating – have a group of people fill the gallery, get them all hyped up ...
Ms Fyles: Dave, the comedy festival …
Mr TOLLNER: Sorry, you got them from the school?
Ms Fyles: No, the comedy festival is next door.
Mr TOLLNER: I am sorry, member for Nightcliff, I thought you said you found them at the school. God help us, I hope they are not teaching our kids.
It is all quite funny. I am sure in a few months’ time Mr Halikos will have carried out his studies, know if he wants to progress this idea or not and have a proposal or not. By that stage, if he has a proposal and wants to progress it, half the Northern Territory will be going nuts. They would have worked not just Nightcliff, but the member for Fannie Bay will be going hell for leather on this one. The member for Wanguri – Wanguri is pretty close to Nightcliff, so they will all be worked up …
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker. Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I seek an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Mr TOLLNER: I thank the opposition for allowing me to continue. I do not want to continue much longer; I find this rather comical.
I am the type of bloke who wants to incubate, grow, build and develop innovation. One of the worst things you can do for innovation is kill it before it starts. I know how crazy and crack pot some of these ideas can sound. They say for every 1000 ideas one of them might work. However, you never find out which one might work unless you look at all 1000. That is the thing about innovation. People like John Halikos, Even Lynne, those who are prepared to take a risk, are people we should value in our community. They are the people we should encourage. If they are prepared to put up some serious dollars, stake their reputation and good name on an idea, the least we can do, as a community, is look at some of these things ...
Mr McCarthy: Can you not direct them to some really innovative spots outside the harbour?
Mr TOLLNER: Of course we can. It is not up to me to direct anybody. The member for Barkly is saying, ‘Make them do this, make them do that’. Halikos has not said it wants to do anything except test an area off the Nightcliff foreshore ...
Ms Lawrie: No, they have an island proposal.
Mr TOLLNER: They have an iron-clad proposal …?
Ms Lawrie: An island.
Mr TOLLNER: It has a proposal which says if it can test the soil and look at what is on the ocean floor it might develop a plan to build an island. I think it is a dream of John Halikos’ to create an island there, and if he looks around and finds it is not suitable, he might put in an application somewhere else and test the sea bed. That is another protest, another reason for your existence in opposition and some other cause you could jump on. He might strike it lucky first time around ...
Ms Fyles: It would be like an island capital city.
Mr TOLLNER: There are plenty of them to our north. You cannot say it is new technology; it has been done in other parts of the world. I do not immediately go into meltdown and paralysis when someone tells me they have an idea, unlike some people in this House who see it as their calling and a great opportunity to create some ructions in our community. They try to get a bit of community action going and whip up a bit of opposition to something which has not started.
It is like the Power and Water debate. We talk about structural separation. They say, ‘While they are talking about it, we will talk about their plans to privatise it. We know what they are up to. It does not matter if they deny it or say it is not on the drawing book, we know because we are smarter than everybody else in this world and we can whip up some hysteria around it.’ That is the way you operate in opposition, and you did the same in government. It is rather shameful. It is farcical and comical; we all get a laugh from watching you lefties run around with self-righteous outrage, but what is alarming – and getting serious now – is the message you send to people with ideas. That is alarming and kills off opportunity. It is what kills development, innovation and enterprise. You guys do not care about any of those.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I was not planning to talk on this tonight, but I will. After I heard we would have a nuclear waste dump on the island I thought I had better say something. I think that is what the Treasurer was saying.
I will not support this motion, but I do not support an island either; I do not think it is a good idea. Someone else does, so I support their option to have it considered. If someone wants an island they should come to the Daly at various times of the year; we could sell them multiple islands. In the Dry Season my property is one island, during the Wet Season it becomes ten so there is potential. A barramundi shaped island is the sort I would recommend there.
One reason I will not support this motion is because it criticises the minister for allowing these people with ideas to go forward. I cannot see why it cannot be tested. The people who have campaigned against it are entitled to their opinion and are voicing their concerns, the same as I have said I do not support it. These people must be able to progress this option. They must find out whether this south Dubai barramundi shaped island could be built. Once that is done, they need to look at the environmental impact and the storm surge it could possibly affect. The member for Johnston was making suggestions, but all of those steps must be gone through. The member for Port Darwin has already said there are probably a thousand steps they must go through. They now know they will have to go through my step on this side. That is one, and I do not know the opinion of other members on this side.
As far as I can remember, whether we agree or disagree with the island has not been discussed at a party wing, but I do not agree with it. I agree these people can have ideas and there is a process to go through. The fact we issued a Crown lease for five years enables this person to test the idea for feasibility. If it is feasible, they will go to the next step. If it is not feasible, perhaps the Treasurer will offer them some other land. I will leave the mango farm on the table for them.
I wanted to place on the record that I will not support the motion in its current form. It is a criticism of the minister and the process, and I do not see a problem with what the minister is allowing or the process. Thank you.
Mr STYLES (Transport): Madam Speaker, I will add to this debate and tell my story.
I arrived in the Northern Territory on 17 May 1981. I came here because the Territory was a great place; I had travelled to the Territory on a couple of occasions and saw the spirit of the people. It was entrepreneurial and ‘go get them’. We are here to generate all sorts of things. I saw people work hard on my various trips, and saw that ‘can do’ spirit.
I arrived with a wife and three children to join the police force, and I had a great time in that role for 27 years prior to being elected member for Sanderson. When you are a young bloke coming here you have your whole life in front of you and you think, ‘Gee, what a fantastic place. It is a great place to raise kids and for kids to play.’ There is bush around, and I know a number of people on the other side of the House remember some of that old Darwin.
I remember it being a town of about 65 000 people; I understand we are now double that figure and growing rapidly. When you drive to 53 Knuckey Street – it used to be a well-known boarding house – it now has a multistorey building on it. On the corner of Searcy Street where the TIO building is there once were houses. I look at the DoubleTree, which when they built it was the Beaufort Hotel. I watched that grow; I watched them close part of McLaughlin Street and pull down the old community hall and build a magnificent new hotel.
I do not recall the humungous outcry when we had to pull down the old hall. I did not hear the outcry when we built Marrakai apartments, one of the first multistorey buildings in town.
The Mitchell building was here where Parliament House sits. It had government offices. The old Supreme Court building was next door where that grassed area is. Across the road was the old Mitchell Street police station where NT House is now; I recall going to work there. I recently saw an old photograph of Mitchell Street when it used to come all the way through to Government House. Those buildings were demolished, new ones were built, and the city regenerated. Not only did the city regenerate, it grew. I remember going to the old workers’ club on Cavenagh Street. They pulled it down and built a new building.
When you travel on a journey of life you see so many things. My kids were all educated and went to university here. They have a future; if you stop development, they do not. I ask people like the member for Nightcliff, who I know has a couple of young children, if we stop everything and say, ‘No we will not do that’, what will her children do for a living? If you keep saying, ‘We don’t like that. We don’t know exactly what it is, but we don’t like it’, that is a sad way to look at things.
I recall the debates about Cullen Bay. I listened to them; they were on TV, radio, in the newspapers and I followed them carefully. People were saying the sky would fall in. ‘It is terrible, the ecological cycle of Darwin Harbour will be destroyed, a range of things will happen. It will affect sandbars, sandbanks, the whole thing is terrible.’ I wonder where those people are now. I recall when they started building a group of six people were the final remnants of the detractors of Cullen Bay. Most people in this House have had relatives and friends come to the Territory who had a fantastic time at Cullen Bay. It is an enjoyable and pleasant experience to sit on the boardwalk, feed the fish, watch boats come and go and watch people living in the Territory, in a city and on a marina. It is alive. It was one of the first things to seriously change the face of Darwin.
These are developments, but to have these developments people must plan and conduct some investigations. They have to take risks and spend money. Government did not spend money at Cullen Bay, private industry built it. This is what happens. I hear the same argument now from members of the opposition that I heard from people about Cullen Bay. I remember the debate in this House on Arafura Harbour. I remember former Chief Minister, Paul Henderson, saying, ‘No, we cannot have this’.
A degree of fairness needs to happen for people wanting to develop. If someone said, ‘We want to build a magnificent thing smack bang in the middle of Knuckey Street’, people might put up a proposal which goes to the Development Consent Authority. It might say, ‘We will not have this. This is ridiculous and does not fit within our guidelines.’
That brings me to the point: what does a development consent authority do? Before it makes a decision, it gets information. Someone has to spend some money, have a range of things done and talk to architects, engineers and geotechnical people. Sometimes they have to do some drilling if they want to build a 50-storey building. They have to find out what the rock formation is. There is a lot of work to do and a lot of jobs are created doing that. They spend their hard-earned money. Sometimes, some of them have to get overdrafts, put their homes and their assets up to borrow money simply to do feasibility studies. Once the feasibility study is done, they have to go to the Development Consent Authority and get it through.
The Development Consent Authority is a group of people who scrutinise what is going on. They might say no, they might say yes, but they gather the information. We have an opposition wanting to make a decision based on no knowledge; it is simply, ‘No, we can’t have that’. I know they had 150 people at a public meeting. I was not there, but they tell me 150 were. What about other people?
I go back to the debate on Cullen Bay because I was here when it was occurring. It was the same thing – people jumping up and down saying, ‘This is terrible, the sky will fall in’. You have to allow people to have a go in the interest of fairness. Developers are employers that put everything on the line every day. Some of them make it and have some pretty good assets. I talk to a lot of developers on a regular basis because they come to me in relation to various aspects of my portfolio wanting to put ideas up. I do not believe it is right to cut them off at the knees before an idea is put up. You have to give people the idea they can dream.
Most people will tell you great things often start as a dream. No one walks in with a set of plans under their arm that just fell from the sky. Everything starts as a dream, and the dreamers of this world generate jobs for people. Many people do not want to dream or put everything on the line; they want a nice safe job. Who creates those nice safe jobs? It is the developers, employers and people prepared to have a go.
If you told someone wanting to build a paint factory we do not like paint and would not allow it I suggest the members opposite would say, ‘That’s not a bad idea, let’s look at it.’ If they want to build a paint factory on the foreshore or on Knuckey Street I would be the first to say, ‘Let’s look at it’. If it has some fantastic environmental stuff that will not affect anyone, maybe they could build it. Maybe they want to build a 50-storey paint factory on the old Woolworths site, but we need to look at that and we should not prevent people from dreaming. If they go to the Development Consent Authority and it says no they have had their turn.
It is so important to give people their turn because if you stifle entrepreneurs you stifle job creation. It does not do any of us in this House any good to stifle jobs, irrespective of what people believe or do not believe in relation to what is happening. It is about jobs for our kids.
I have three adult children who need jobs. I have grandchildren, and when they grow up they will want a job too. If we stifle development and send a message to people locally, nationally and internationally that if you come to the Territory with a dream we will cut you off at the knees before you wake, that is not fair.
I recall living on Aralia Street, Nightcliff, in the member for Nightcliff’s area. I lived at two addresses in Nightcliff, one on Nightcliff Road – in fact, I lived next to the former Speaker, Jane Aagaard – great neighbours. In the time I was at Aralia Street – I spent 10 years there – I saw a lot of development. The place I lived in when I first came to Darwin had a Nissan hut on it. I recall driving down Aralia Street as a young police officer many years ago – I remember that Nissan hut – they built a set of units on it. That is where I lived for 10 years, in a nice unit on Aralia Street. The old BP service station on one corner is now a block of units. There was a lovely old home there that was pretty dilapidated. Mrs Johnson, who lived on the corner of Aralia Street and Nightcliff Road, sold her house and they built a nice big block of units. She got a brand new unit out of that and loved it. I spoke to her over the back fence on many occasions. I was keeping an eye on her because she was an older lady, and a lovely Nightcliff resident ...
Ms Lawrie: Is this your Chief Minister speech? You are losing votes.
Mr STYLES: You have to laugh at them. I remember when I was in opposition they used to say we were a rabble. They are twice the rabble we were accused of being.
Aralia Street, along the foreshore of Casuarina Drive – I wonder if the member for Nightcliff would say, ‘We should just bowl all those units over? Let us just get rid of them. We do not like them. Let us plant some nice trees and grass there.’ I do not know exactly where the member for Nightcliff lives in her electorate, but let us look at her yard. A few years ago there was some nice bush in her yard and someone bulldozed the trees and ripped up all the magnificent grasses growing there. They probably killed a few birds in the process and displaced some birds’ nests and things, all terrible stuff. They go home to their nice house in Nightcliff and say, ‘I have a nice home here’. What about other people who would like a nice home? What about the people who work hard and would like to invest in something? That is about investing in jobs. I know a lot of builders and subcontractors are union people. I wonder what your union mates would think if you said, ‘Let’s kill all the jobs’.
Some of the developers who speak to me about a range of things, such as roads and infrastructure, are concerned. They want to make sure they have plenty of work. We are providing that. If you put these people in charge of the show they are likely to say, ‘We are the ALP, we are in charge. We don’t like that so we will can it. We don’t like this either, we will can it.’ That is communism, because you are not giving everyone in the community a fair go. Give them a fair go to put their proposal to the Development Consent Authority. It may be that when they have done all the geotechnical work it shows it is a good idea but will not suit the subterranean rock formation. It is important we give them the opportunity.
The people who are proposing this have a huge workforce; they employ a lot of people. Many people go home every Friday with a pay packet because these people are trying to get developments off the ground and create work. If you say, ‘No, we won’t have that one, we won’t have this one’, where do you start and where do you finish? If we do not have this one over here – ‘Sorry, guys and ladies, you do not have a job. Go home and tell your kids they can’t go to the movies. In fact, you will be eating bread and water for a couple of days until you get paid again or go to Centrelink.’ People are killing developments before they get off the ground and a proposal has been put forward.
I go back to Arafura Harbour. It does not matter what I think, it does not matter what the opposition thinks – well, it should not. People who have an idea and a plan should be able to develop it, go to public consultation and look at it.
I recall looking at the Arafura Harbour display in the old Chinese buildings on Cavenagh Street. It was fascinating. It was interesting because the night it opened a number of journalists from the NT News were there. They had the opening and there were probably 100 people in the building. They had their displays up, and there was wine for some of the people. It was interesting because a number of media people there had no idea what they were reporting on. They had, for instance, circular drawings of what Melbourne looked like 150 years ago. It was about a tenth of the size, maybe less. What was there? Bush, lots of big trees, all sorts of fantastic stuff. Someone had bulldozed a massive area around Melbourne.
If you went there now, and Melbourne was 10% the size, and you said, ‘Right, I am bulldozing all these trees and we will build a city called Melbourne’, people would think you were nuts. It happened over a period of time, and that is the way things develop. They evolve over a period of time, as all our capital cities have. Go over to Nhulunbuy – what happened to Nhulunbuy? About 40 years ago someone decided we would have a mine. They would bulldoze all the trees, people would build houses on the beach and what did they do? Everywhere in Australia has seen development.
I do not know if these people are proposing we do not look at ideas for any new development. I am quite surprised and wonder what their plan is. We agree that we can develop Darwin. They can build a big INPEX plant and have a great time, but do not want anything to do with an island. People ask if this will affect the tide or if it will affect – these questions should be asked by the Development Consent Authority. I am sure if someone is serious about putting up a plan for an island, be it there or anywhere, they have a plan. I was in Singapore recently …
Mrs LAMBLEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Mr Vowles: Come on, chief!
Mr STYLES: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Where do they find this entertainment? When you fly in to Singapore and see what is happening there – there are walls around the place and it looks like a fence. They are reclaiming land. Singapore is reclaiming land down to a depth of about 120 feet. It can go deeper, but that is where their technology is at the moment – 120 feet deep. If you look at Dave’s pool scoop, it is 7 m. One hundred and twenty feet is about 40 m and Singapore is filling it up with sand and creating a bigger island. They can do it in Singapore so what is the problem with an island here?
Singapore has some very good technology and I am sure the people who want to get this through – if you spend a lot of money to do a feasibility study you will do a good job. If you find after the feasibility study it is not a viable option, so be it. On our side, we believe it is the right of every Territorian to say they have an idea and have the freedom to develop it. You are not allowing people to have an equal say. I do not know some of the people who turned up; they might want to build units on their block in Nightcliff. There are big blocks in Nightcliff and perhaps they want to knock their house down. Should we stop that? ‘I don’t like that. In that part of Nightcliff we should have big blocks.’
What if they want to subdivide it? When you look at modern city design, infill is happening all over the world. It is convenient, people get better services. If you want to build houses you only have to go to Perth to see that. It is the longest city in the world now – 165 km long. It is not very wide but it is long. It is a bit like a runway, not wide but very long. From one end of the metropolitan area to the other is 65 km. That is an enormous city.
My brother in-law moved to town a couple of years ago. He came here on long service leave, stayed with us and saw the light. He said, ‘Gee, the Territory is a great place’. He lived in Waikiki, which is near Rockingham, south of Perth and used to drive to work. The Kwinana Freeway is two lanes south and two lanes north and there is 165 km of it. When you get north of Perth it is called the Mitchell Freeway, and is chock-a-block full of cars. He said, ‘I come to Darwin and drive out to Northlakes’ – where I live – ‘and there are three lanes coming home, which is magnificent, and the traffic is nothing compared to Perth’.
People in Perth have a different set of problems. It is spread all over the place, either side of the city centre, and travelling takes an enormous amount of time. We hear of issues in Sydney, where in places they keep building out and out. In Sydney they are now building multiple storey units in the city. Look around the world at the technology employed for these buildings and their design features. They have six-star energy ratings. They are using thermo glass to reduce air conditioning costs. I recently heard of a building in Darwin using modern technology to cut down its energy costs. We are building stuff in the cities.
What happens when people want to build an island close to the city? They should be able to. There are challenges with some of the issues the member for Nightcliff raised.
We are in the process of revamping the bus network. You talked about lots of cars, but we have identified that. Because the CLP has a plan, we are doing something about it ...
Mr Higgins: Could buses go to the island?
Mr STYLES: They could go to the island. We could have a fast ferry or we could build a big bridge there. We could do a lot of things. I am sure the people proposing this will come up with some great ideas about what they can and cannot do, and what is feasible and what is not.
It will be an interesting revamp of the public transport system, both here and in Alice Springs. Jarrett Walker is a world-renowned expert on timetabling, routes and all those issues. I had a briefing from him the other day, and it is looking fantastic. It is different and interesting. When you look at where Darwin city and the greater Darwin area are going, we need to look at public transport.
In the upcoming budget there will be an announcement on money to be spent on cycle paths to connect various places in the city. We are looking at all the things which will make travelling in Darwin easier. There will be fewer cars on the road.
Again, we go back to the fact these people need to come up with proposals. I am sure there are members opposite who understand when you have these developments you have to come up with a range of things. There are some things happening around the greater Darwin area where traffic flow comes into the development application. If a new building changes traffic flow it needs to be part of a submission. These are things the Development Consent Authority and the Department of Transport look at. If it impacts on roads they need permission to join aspects into roads. A whole range of things have to happen.
I do not know what members opposite and the member for Nightcliff think. Do they think it goes to the Development Consent Authority, and someone says, ‘I have a great idea. I would like to build an island in Nightcliff. What do you reckon?’ The Development Consent Authority says, ‘That sounds like a good idea. Yes, build an island.’
I hope that is not the simplistic view you have because there are many hurdles. What is happening at the moment, with an investigation into feasibility, is just the beginning. There are numerous hurdles a developer would have to go through for a project that size. They put a lot of work into the Arafura Harbour proposal. What happened? Before they were given the opportunity to legally do what they could – apply and submit plans – the former Chief Minister cut them off at the knees and said, ‘No, we will not be supporting that’.
It is a kick in the guts for developers when you are that blunt and say, ‘We do not care what anyone says, we won’t do that because we don’t like it. We don’t have all the facts on the proposal in front of us, but we aren’t doing it.’ When in opposition we questioned the government on that and wanted an answer. It was, ‘We just don’t like it’. That is anti-development, because if you do not like this one what happens tomorrow when you do not like that one, that other one over there or the one following? If people who generate wealth are not paying payroll tax or GST our income declines and we do not have the money to spend on the things we would like to ensure are looked after. People who generate wealth enable us to spend money in our community and generate jobs and social services we require as part of government.
Mums and dads, grandmas, kids, being able to look after your dog or cat and being able to feed them are things every family in the Northern Territory wants. If we stifle development these people want to create we are doing every Territorian a disservice.
Time does not permit me to finish the three pages of notes I have. I would love to have the time to talk further, but I am only about a quarter of the way through. It is so important everyone has a level playing field when looking at development for the good of the Northern Territory.
I want my children to have a fair go at getting a job here as well as everyone else’s kids, and I want generations to come to enjoy the benefits of a great economy. Thank you.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Health): Madam Speaker, I am against the motion put forward by the member for Nightcliff.
The motion is an objection to the concept of an island being created off the Nightcliff coast. After listening to my colleague, the member for Sanderson, I felt compelled to join in this important debate and there are many critical points yet to be made.
People should do what they feel they need to in objecting or not objecting to this development. The beauty of our democracy in Australia is we are free to do whatever we want. If we do not agree with something, we can, by all means, protest at the front of Parliament House, collect signatures, create a petition and do whatever we need to exercise our right to object. Without hesitation, I support people exercising that right. Tonight, we have seen a group of residents from the Nightcliff area exercising their right to object and say, ‘No, we do not agree with this’, and putting it to the parliament of the Northern Territory. I respect those people for coming in this evening and I respect the member for Nightcliff for bringing this motion to our attention.
However, there is another side to the story, and numerous speakers from the government have debated what that is. My contribution will be an extension of what you have already heard. Although it is the right of people to protest against anything in our society they do not agree with, it is also important for them to collect the information and be across all the facts. The facts do not seem to be reflected very clearly in the motion put to us tonight.
The Treasurer put forward that the government has allowed, to this point, a business of the Northern Territory to run with an idea to start exploring a concept of how they might develop an island off the coast of Nightcliff. At the moment it is only that, but the first step in the development concept has raised all sorts of fears and concerns for the people of Nightcliff – some people, not all who reside in the area. Some people will think it is a good thing. You do not hear from them because they are not feeling disaffected in any way. We are hearing from people who do not agree with it and this is understandable.
When this type of planning idea come to the public’s attention, it is normal for there to be a reaction. These developments mean some people’s lives will be changed in a profound and significant way. On the surface it may not seem relevant or significant to other people, but for them it is extremely important. It is offensive, worrying and causes an immense emotional reaction. The member for Johnston said how, as a child, he spent time on the mudflats collecting shells and crustaceans. He described how he has enjoyed the pristine environment of that part of the world around Nightcliff, as did the member for Nightcliff.
People have very personal connections to this part of the environment. I get it, and I am sure other people in this Chamber do too. We all have a special place in the world, one which may be a spiritual home or a place we love to spend time in and amongst. Any threat to that space is deeply personal. It has happened to me – the feeling that my peace and space on Earth where I feel wonderful may be threatened. Once you get to middle age like me, you are lucky to get through life without having experienced a threat to your patch. The people of Nightcliff have had this experience. They have heard about the Halikos island development, or the concept of a development and the exploration of ideas around the concept, and have had an immediate physical and emotional reaction to what is a shock, a threat. It is a normal human reaction, fight or flight.
The immediate reaction is one of shock, anger, almost like grief – I have been there myself and have watched other people go through it. They immediately want to fight this threat to their piece of paradise. In many ways it is a grief reaction. I have seen people go through the process from start to finish; you become very depressed at different points because you feel you have no control over what is happening around you. Some people go through a denial phase of, ‘It won’t be that bad, it might not happen’.
Sometimes these things do not come to fruition. Sometimes these proposals and ideas never happen, as we have heard from various speakers on this side of the House tonight. Sometimes it never gets past the concept or ideological stage. If it comes to fruition some people will fight the whole way, and these things can go on for many years and take a big role in peoples’ lives. Some people will be defined by these causes, but I do not want to pre-empt what will happen in this space too much because this is a concept. It may never happen and may not be a good idea. It may be a bad, irrational, economically and financially unviable idea and people may not want to live on an island at that location.
It may not stack up for many reasons, but I know that experience. One of my favourite movies is Muriel’s Wedding. One of the lines in Muriel’s Wedding is – Bill Heslop, Muriel’s father, is an alderman on the Porpoise Spit local council and his slogan is ‘You can’t stop progress’. I watch that movie time and time again, and always laugh at Bill and his pathetic antics. He used to chant, ‘You can’t stop progress’. You can, and that is what we have seen tonight. A group of local residents have attempted to stop what some might call progress. From this side of the room we see progress as an integral part of the survival of the Northern Territory.
Without progress, this place would grind to a halt. We are so heavily dependent on government funding for everything we do, every activity we undertake, whether it is sport, BASSINTHEGRASS, horse racing or local festivals. Most of them are very heavily funded and supported by government. Our health system is essentially all government. Everything we do, our survival in the Northern Territory, is dependent on government funding. Stimulating the private sector is critical because government funding cannot last forever. It is inevitable the welfare tap will one day, as it has to some extent already, slowly come to a grinding halt. There will always be some sort of government assistance, but never to this level in the future.
We must look at sustainable ways of keeping the Northern Territory going and it is about progress, development, thinking outside the square and taking risks. We are committed to encouraging companies like the Halikos Group to put these outrageous or different proposals on the table, to let us look at them, think outside the square and explore what is possible in the Northern Territory.
One thing we did not see under the former government was exercise of imaginative processes and allowing people to think outside the square. We did not see that under Labor. It was all fairly straightforward and routine because it was hemmed in by its politics; Labor is a victim of the compromises it has made over the last decade or so, particularly with the Greens. They are hand in hand. Labor and the Greens are lovers, and that has been a fairly productive relationship up until the last few years. It has meant Labor has been able to keep government across the country.
It will suffocate it, and this is probably a good example of a hangover from that era. For most of the country the Labor Party is over, as is its connection with the Greens and the environmental groups. That is not to say we dismiss environmental concerns and some of the principles held by Green groups, but the party affiliation with the Greens has soured. This sort of example typifies how the Greens have managed to suffocate the Labor Party in recent times, and how Labor has chosen to separate from the Greens because they are against progress at all costs. The Greens will fight anything, as my colleagues have said, that damages a few crustaceans; anything that sets a fish or a prawn on a different course is the end of the world. We know this is not the case. We have a responsibility to pave a prosperous and full life for future Territorians. We embrace progress; we do not want to stifle progress in any way, particularly by concerns that are not based on anything factual. We have to follow a rational line when it comes to development proposals. We cannot afford to let emotions get in the way of what could potentially be a positive development in the Northern Territory.
As I said, we do not know where this development is going or whether it will be a good or bad thing. I have heard the Chief Minister describe this development in the past – it is different. We are excited by what it might mean, what it might look like and how it might take that whole part of the Darwin foreshore into a new era of contemporary design and architecture. Look at what happened at Cullen Bay years ago. Who would have imagined that development in that part of Darwin years ago? There was enormous resistance to that project, enormous concern about environmental issues and how it would impact on existing residents. There was a lot of push back. Now, years later, we all see Cullen Bay as a regular part of life in Darwin. It is a plush, upmarket part of Darwin we enjoy living in, visiting or enjoying the facilities at different times. No one looks at Cullen Bay and sees it as a terrible blight in Darwin; it is not seen in that light.
We must take people with us on these journeys. We cannot plant these things on people and say, ‘Get over it and get on with it’. It takes a process of consultation, which is what the member for Nightcliff was talking about earlier. People have to be brought along with it. The fact that people have marched in here today and objected to the beginning phase of what may or may not be a substantial project in Darwin says to me we need to continue talking to local people and continue to consult. We need to continue making sure all stakeholders – the member for Nightcliff, the environmental groups, all the people who have already objected to it – are taken along on the ride. These people might be the ones who benefit most from something as special and exciting as Halikos island. These people’s land values could more than likely go through the roof even more. This is the benefit to the community. When you are fixated on the negatives you cannot see the positives and beyond how it will affect what you have known and what you think will be in the future.
Most of us have gone through something similar to this in our lives. If you have not, I can almost guarantee you will. Approximately 12 years ago, a couple of years after my husband and I bought a property outside Alice Springs, two major housing developments were declared. We could potentially have found ourselves surrounded by houses in the middle of suburbia. We are typical rural residents, and there are a few represented in the Chamber. We thought that was, literally, the end of the world when, in quick succession, these two housing developments were announced. One of the housing developments would have meant thousands of cars travelling past the front of our property every day, so I know how these people feel.
We had an adverse reaction to those proposals and I am glad, even after 10 years, nothing has happened. It does not always end badly. I do not accept the premise of the motion put forward by the member for Nightcliff. There is lots of potential in this early development proposal put forward by Halikos. I urge the people of Nightcliff to be patient, to gather more information, and we promise to consult more.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
I put on the record a telephone call recently made to my office by a gentleman expressing his appreciation to Victims of Crime NT. It is an organisation supported by the Northern Territory government, and this will continue.
The gentleman, David John Pickett, expressed his appreciation for the support provided to him by Victims of Crime NT after he was robbed. He is in his 70s, is diabetic and has had cancer. He travelled from Western Australia, where he lived in a remote area, to Tennant Creek to bury his wife about a week ago. Whilst in a Tennant Creek hotel he was robbed and attacked by a juvenile who went to court and was given a custodial sentence. Mr Pickett received only half of the stolen money back, as the cash was located on the offender. Meanwhile, Mr Pickett’s motor vehicle and caravan were parked at Renner Springs on a property, but because he was robbed he had no money to get his vehicles back. Due to his unfortunate circumstances, police told Mr Pickett about Victims of Crime NT services.
Victims of Crime NT arranged for Mr Pickett to travel to Darwin for a court case and provided him accommodation at Frogshollow in the CBD. He was also advised about the age pension in the Northern Territory. Mr Pickett called to commend the Victims of Crime NT program as he received great support and believes it is an essential service for victims of crime. He was very grateful there was a service to assist him following his ordeal and while suffering from illness and injuries.
Mr Pickett believes there is nothing similar to this service on offer in Western Australia. Victims of crime are able to access these services and it has had an increase of funding through the Sentenced to a Job program. Prior to Sentenced to a Job, the Department of Correctional Services provided a modest contribution to Victims of Crime NT, funding about $6000 annually through art sales and the Behind the Wire exhibition.
This began to rise when the employment scheme began, and last month a staggering $14 746 was sent to the organisation for the December quarter alone. In the first year funding jumped from $22 585 in the last two quarters alone, and has already reached $23 424. Mr Campbell, manager of Victims of Crime NT, described the result as a fantastic contribution and he was delighted at the growth of the program in such a short time.
I believe the funding will be placed in a donations account where it can be drawn on in times of need. This may include travel and accommodation costs for victims to attend court hearings and medical appointments. I thank manager, Mike Campbell for his fantastic and dedicated work.
I also congratulate the inmates of the Northern Territory participating in an accelerated literacy and numeracy program to give them the best chance of a crime-free life once released from the corrections system. Since the beginning of this year, 98 inmates have enrolled in the QuickSmart learning program, and I acknowledge the former government for enabling the corrections system to take this program on.
The QuickSmart program is designed to provide a basic education relevant to the future needs of inmates. We do not need PhDs, just functional literacy. Since coming to government in August 2012, 9841 lessons have been provided for the direct benefit of the many illiterate inmates in the corrections system. Inmates who are unable to read and write – many of who are Indigenous – are given a chance to receive a basic education which increases the likelihood of them gaining paid employment, something we are on the record for guiding people in to.
Both the literacy and numeracy courses on offer are targeted and relevant to inmates’ interests, so the skills they learn can be transferred into the real world. For example, a person working in prison industries will learn the appropriate literacy and numeracy for a tradesperson. Inmates who excel in the QuickSmart program are also eligible to become a mentor or tutor. There are currently 11 inmates filling this role in Darwin and Alice Springs.
Education is the foundation for a better future and makes a person more attractive to an employer, should they be accepted into the government’s Sentenced to a Job program. A prisoner in the Northern Territory should be working and developing their skills, not sitting in a cell twiddling their thumbs. Work is a major key to reducing recidivism and diverting people away from offending behaviour. I have espoused the virtues of work as a form of correction, self-discovery and development of dignity on many occasions. I have seen nothing, in my experience as Corrections minister, to suggest the presumptions I have had impelling this policy development have been incorrect.
I am proud of the Northern Territory government’s achievements in the last 18 months and look forward to continuing the roll-out of important programs for the people of the Northern Territory. This is so offenders coming through the system have the best chance possible of not returning to it.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I will speak about some events that finished yesterday in front of the parliament with the presentation of some vehicles and medals.
Bushfires NT staff and volunteers make a valuable contribution to the safety and protection of rural, regional and remote communities from fire. Two of those units are in my electorate; one is Milne and the other Livingstone. They are two of many.
Yesterday the minister presented the Milne Volunteer Bushfire Brigade with a $73 000 medium attack unit and the Livingstone Volunteer Bushfire Brigade with a $60 000 grassfire unit.
I helped in the presentation of four service medals to members of the Milne brigade. For background information, it has 70 registered volunteers. If people do not know where the Milne brigade is, it is centred on an area known as Bynoe Haven. It is located on the southern side of Bynoe Harbour and is midway between the Cox Peninsula and Dundee.
Not to forget Livingstone, it has 25 registered volunteers and is on the side of the Stuart Highway between the Cox Peninsula turnoff and Acacia – Livingstone Road next to the reserve.
The main thing I will speak about tonight is the four people who received medals. I was at Milne about two weeks ago with my wife for an evening where we spoke about these four people who had done 10 years’ service. However, the bushfires representative had locked up the medals and could not get to them on the weekend so we had to present them yesterday.
The first member was Roscoe Orman. Roscoe has been a member of the brigade since 2001, and as an active firefighter he held the position of first lieutenant. Unfortunately, due to ill health he could not continue as a firefighter. He stepped down as first lieutenant in 2003. However, he has continued his strong support of the Milne brigade as a continuous active member, regularly attending brigade meetings and functions, donating items of use to the brigade over the years and assisting with fundraising.
The second person was Vicki Stokes. Vicki has been a member of the brigade since December 2003 after completing a Firefighter One course. She has been an active firefighter, assisting predominately with fire reduction burns. She has been a very active contributor to fundraising efforts, participating on stalls at the Freds Pass Show, which will restart this year. The members for Nelson and Goyder will be happy with that. She has also helped with many sausage sizzles at Harvey Norman and Bunnings. Since 2011 she has been the brigade treasurer and has built on the professional financial management and reporting developed by Vic Czernezkyj. This year she introduced a cost coding system which made the reporting and audit processes even more transparent and efficient. Her financial management has been exemplary and her reporting is very clear, detailed and transparent, probably leading to the success of that unit having 70 volunteers.
Kath Phelan has been a member of the brigade since December 2003. She completed a firefighter course and has assisted predominantly with fire reduction burns ever since. She has also been an active fund raiser at sausage sizzles at Harvey Norman and Bunnings, and will be assisting at the Freds Pass Show. Kathryn has been the brigade’s public officer since December 2010. She has been meticulous about keeping members informed of their statutory obligations, is keen to ensure high standards and to see meetings are well run, allowing all members to be heard with courtesy and respect.
The last person is someone people on this side know quite well, Gary Swanson. Gary has been a member of the brigade since December 2003, and the secretary since October 2004. Since then, he has been elected unopposed every year. After completing the Firefighter One course he has been an active firefighter, assisting predominately with fire reduction burns. During that period he has also been very active and won 16 grants totalling $130 000 for the brigade and has personally contributed significantly to the brigade’s built infrastructure. He has been innovative and energetic in pursuing initiatives to benefit the Milne brigade and Bynoe Haven community in general. I put on the record my support for volunteers of all fields and persuasions, and congratulate those four people on the receipt of their 10-year service medals. Thank you.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I will talk about Greek Independence Day, which was yesterday, 25 March; what a great day it was. On that day in 1821, Greece took the first steps to securing its own future. The Greek people rose up to reclaim their heritage as citizens of a sovereign nation. Yesterday, on the 193rd anniversary of Greece’s independence, we commemorated that struggle to restore democracy to its birthplace. Democracy was a gift Greece gave to the world and from ancient times in Athens to here in Darwin, democracy is a common thread we all share. The Greeks brought forth the world’s first democracy and kindled a philosophical tradition that would stand the test of time. Over two millennia later, the Greek people rose up to reclaim their heritage as citizens of a sovereign nation. The Greek war of independence lasted from 1821 to 1832, with the Greeks supported by the great powers of Britain, France and Russia.
Yesterday, on the 193rd anniversary of Greece’s independence, we commemorated its struggle to restore democracy to its birthplace, renew the bonds that bring many countries in the free world together and to celebrate the Hellenic ideals that run like a thread through so many countries, and here in the Northern Territory, particularly Darwin. The proud traditions that tie Greeks together and honour all those who trace their lineage to the Hellenic republic are still worth celebrating.
A couple of interesting facts: Darwin has one of the largest per capita Greek populations of any city in the world, with one tenth of the population being of Greek heritage. Mr John Nicolakis AM was made a member of the Order of Australia for significant service to the Australian Greek community of the Northern Territory. On Sunday, I commemorated, along with the Deputy Chief Minister and members of the Greek community, the war of independence which Greeks fought and ultimately prevailed in. This is a significant celebration for Greek people all over the world with large parades in many cities, including New York and London.
Greece and its people have made a significant contribution to the prosperity of not only the Northern Territory, but the world as the cradle of democracy. Without democracy, economic development does not seem to occur, and with democracy comes a better standard of living not only for us, but for our children and those who come after. One of the great things about living in Darwin – we all know about the Greek Glenti, a festival held each year to celebrate all that it is Greek. One fact I love to share with friends and relatives when they visit is over three tonnes of octopus is required for the Glenti. I spoke about this last year; it is interesting to recall that at the first Glenti they had about 100 kg of octopus. They had it in the same place they have it now, with a bunch of those nice blue tarps you get at Kmart, a few poles and a bit of string, a couple of barbecues and half 44 gallon drums with some timber in them. They had Greek beer, lots of octopus, a bit of souvlaki, some baklava and lots of other yummy food. I cannot pronounce the Greek version of the vanilla slice.
It is a fabulous festival coming up in June. I encourage everyone in this House to visit this two-day event, starting on Friday into Saturday with a big finale on Sunday. You see all the Greeks there on Monday for the clean-up. It is a fabulous event. If anyone in this House has not been you should go to see what the Greeks do for our community. It is interesting because it is voluntary labour on the stalls from all the Greek footy clubs, the Greek school and the various Greek organisations. They volunteer their labour to raise money.
They pick a worthy recipient charity each year and donate all money raised to that charity. They raise well in excess of $100 000 from the event, which goes to some very worthy charities and very grateful people who benefit from the goodwill of the Greek community. The people of Darwin patronise that event.
The Northern Territory owes a great deal to the Greek community. They assimilate into the community, as I have said on numerous occasions. I made a speech at the Greek school on Saturday. The school runs on Saturday mornings and I was able to watch a performance by students. Many Greek kids go there to learn language skills, culture, their history and what it is to have Greek lineage. It is quite interesting because there are many mixed marriages these days, and you see people from every walk of life at the Greek school learning about Greek culture.
It was a pleasure to address the young people. In March 1821, the Greeks fought for democracy and freedom. Many battles have been fought around the world over time immemorial in the interest of freedom. Freedom is a very fragile state. Without strong communities, cultural links and a strong culture, freedom can easily slip away. If we become complacent and do not teach our children the values of a community and there is nothing to fight for – be it an economy or values – that is when freedom can slip through our fingers.
We all know the Greeks and many others have fought for freedom and it is an inspiration to us all, including those young people learning about their culture and the values of what a free community stands for. They were there singing, dancing, putting on performances and being very proud of what they do every Saturday. They are all fluent in Australian Greek. From some of the faces there, I am sure these young people are fluent in a couple of other languages as well.
On Saturday afternoon the Greek Honorary Consul-General, Mr John Anictomatis AO, hosted a function at Manoli’s. For those who may not know, it is a Greek taverna in Smith Street. It is a fine Greek establishment where they serve good Greek wines, beer – a lot of Australian stuff too – and a lot of Greek cuisine. A large number of people gathered to celebrate the event that occurred on 25 March 1821 and the 193rd anniversary. It was a pleasure to support that event. The Deputy Chief Minister and I were there to congratulate the Greeks and their forebears on the fine job they did in standing up for and protecting the free peoples of the world.
On Sunday we were at the Greek Orthodox Church in Cavenagh Street. Those who have been around Darwin for a while know it is renowned for its Easter celebration. I am looking around this room and I see the member for Nelson …
Mr Wood: Their fireworks.
Mr STYLES: The stand and the fireworks. These days I do not know whether they are using half sticks of gelignite to celebrate Easter, but they certainly have a few fireworks to celebrate Greek Easter.
We were there to lay wreaths in memory of those who fought and died, those who fought and were injured and all Greeks since those days who have fought and died in wars in the fight for freedom.
It was a pleasure to be at those events and share in celebrating the great contribution the world and Northern Territory Greek communities have made. Thank you.
Mrs PRICE (Stuart): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will speak about my recent trip to attend the 58th Commission on the Status of Women held in New York.
I was honoured to attend on behalf of the Northern Territory and be part of the Australian government delegation with people like Senator Hon Michaelia Cash, the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women; Australian Ambassador for Women and Girls, Natasha Stott Despoja AM; and Liz Broderick, Australia’s Sex Discrimination Commissioner.
I attended over 15 sessions during the week ranging from the impact of violence against women on economies, the importance of unpaid care in our economy and society, the various legislative local, state and international frameworks addressing violence and the importance of education in breaking the cycle of violence and poverty.
While I was there I also held and attended a number of bilateral and multilateral meetings. I met the Australian Ambassador to the UN, Mr Gary Quinlan, and his deputy, who hosted a reception for the large contingent of Aussies at the CSW 58.
It was great to meet a range of Aussie women who all shared a passion to advance the issues of Australian women at the CSW 58. They came from government and NGOs across Australia. Talking of ambassadors, I also had the honour of meeting with US Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues, Hon Catherine Russell. Ambassador Russell had the pleasure of attending Minister Cash’s launch of the Australian Women in Public Service Project. The Australian government is committed to the WPSP 50 by 50 goal of increasing the number of women in decision-making positions in the public service and on boards to 50% by 2050.
I will look at how the Northern Territory can get on board, taking into account the number of programs we already run for women in the Northern Territory. I will continue to lobby and persuade my Cabinet colleagues to ensure gender equality is a continued strong focus of this government.
One of the highlights – it was interesting I had to go to New York to achieve this – was the meeting I had with Minister Cash, Ambassador Stott Despoja and Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Liz Broderick. We spoke about having a stronger focus on what we can do across government to prevent violence, support women and children who have been victims of violence and sexual assault, and also look at mental health issues in the bush.
One of the outcomes was the Northern Territory will host a planning day to construct a framework complementing the second action plan to start changing the DNA of Aboriginal culture, where violence has become accepted because people hide behind culture as an excuse. We also agreed to attend a meeting of the APY homelands women’s group.
I also had the pleasure of attending a bilateral meeting with the Hon Jo Goodhew, New Zealand Minister of Women’s Affairs, about ways we could share information and ideas about women’s issues. The issues we talked about included development, economic pathways and violence prevention programs, especially in Indigenous communities.
Minister Goodhew and I also talked about better ways to track and monitor women’s issues through gender specific data. This is something I look forward to investigating with my Northern Territory colleagues.
Continuing on with my bilateral meetings, I had the pleasure of meeting briefly with Lord Vaea, the Minister for Internal Affairs in Tonga. We talked about common issues with Indigenous communities and agreed to look at ways we can open a dialogue between the NT and Tonga to see how we can help each other on women’s issues given we share so many in common.
It was an honour to be invited to speak by the Swedish and Sri Lankan governments, and be part of a panel on preventing violence against girls and boys. I spoke about my experiences and how governments can work together to prevent violence, and address and heal those who are subject to it. Other members of the panel included the Sri Lankan ambassador to the UN, a women’s member, a young Mexican girl and a girl from Malawi, who shared their experiences of violence. It was an interesting outcome, with the panel agreeing discrimination against young people can be a form of violence, especially regarding restricted access to education and information on, for example, sexual health. The panel also agreed with me that education is the vaccine for the 21st century and we need to push for more targeted education as a key to removing violence, and not just education in the classroom. As a society, we are all responsible for educating our young people about violence and appropriate behaviours.
I also met with Sri Lankan Ambassador, Dr Palitha Kohona, who invited the Northern Territory to participate in a world youth congress later this year in Sri Lanka. I will speak to my colleague, the Minister for Young Territorians, about what the Northern Territory can do.
What were the outcomes for the Northern Territory? The Northern Territory needs to participate on the global scene, to see who does what and learn from what they do well and what they do not. We need to explore how we address this to discourage violence from prevailing in our communities. We need not think we have all the answers. Preventing violence against women and children cannot be done by a Google search. Meeting and speaking with experts and learning from their experiences cannot be downloaded from the Internet.
Access to relevant NGO programs and seeing what private investment is available to run programs in our communities is also of great benefit. I spoke with a number of NGOs which are keen to assist in the Northern Territory, stop the normalisation of violence in families and work together with other jurisdictions and countries to identify what works and what does not; recognise and quantify how Aboriginal women do more unpaid work – caring was mentioned – than anywhere in the world, and continue to explore improving access for Aboriginal women to equal opportunities for work and training.
Young Aboriginal women admire what we do for them. How can we better use role models, and the role social media plays? Look to develop pilot programs in targeted communities to roll-out as model programs across the Territory and continue to explore how we can deal sensitively with teenage pregnancies in communities. What can we do better to educate and equip those young mothers?
I thank the Chief Minister for this opportunity, and look forward to embracing and putting together the things I learnt and new connections I have made to get better outcomes for Territory women.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will briefly comment on the good work of the Koolpinyah volunteer fire brigade. Last week I spoke of the good work of the Elizabeth Valley volunteer fire brigade, which is associated with the Bushfire Council NT. For those who are not aware, the NT fire service has a number of volunteer fire brigades, of which Koolpinyah is one. Outside a particular part of the rural area it falls under the responsibility of the Bushfire Council NT, which is mostly in your electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker. It had its AGM on Sunday, which I attended – I have done so for a couple of years – and it has a wonderful complex set up on Pioneer Road, on the corner as you go into the golf club. It was looking impeccable. The brigade has done a lot of work over the last four or five years I have known it. There is still a bit more work to do, but it is definitely a great facility.
This past year was a bit quieter than the previous one, with 74 emergency response calls compared to 121 in the previous year. Emergency and volunteer fire brigade people do a lot more than just attend fires, which I do not think a lot of people are aware of. They also attend vehicle accidents on the roads and attend to vehicle fires wherever they may be. They do attend some structural fires, in association with the NT fire service. For the year, total volunteer hours of this group were 1679, which is extraordinary. A big chunk of that is expended on what they call community service, like inspections of properties before they issue a fire permit.
They do hazard reduction burns, fundraise for their brigade and also take part in – well-known in the rural area in particular – the Santa Run which is a lot of time and effort where not only the Koolpinyah volunteer brigade but Humpty Doo as well, on different weekends, do a Santa Run around the rural area; they even put up signs saying ‘Santa Stops Here’. They give bags, drinks and treats to all the children who come out. I think the Humpty Doo people gave out about 600 to 700 bags, with Koolpinyah doing something similar. It is an extraordinary effort. They do it every year and it is much appreciated by people in the rural area.
They also spend a lot of time on administration and maintenance, which includes crew changeovers, plant and equipment checks, vehicle service and repairs, maintenance of the building and grounds, attendance at brigade meetings and general administration. They must also keep their training and skills up to date, and over the year they spent 470 hours in training and skills maintenance.
There are new members of the brigade. Like any volunteer organisation it is continually looking for new members and new people. David Richardson came to join the brigade, as well as Jo and Jenny Van Loenhout. I know their skills, knowledge and enthusiasm will be invaluable over the coming year.
Throughout the year one of the main fundraising activities of this volunteer fire brigade is selling meat trays at the Humpty Doo pub every Friday night. Beth Stacey has been doing that for 10 years. She and her team continue to give up their personal time on Friday nights to run the meat trays at the pub and I think the most they have sold is six trays in 14 minutes, which is extraordinary. They have a lot of fun and people queue up to buy tickets; some of them get quite upset when the meat trays sell out and they have not had an opportunity to buy tickets. That is how popular they are. They are an institution there and thanks to the hotel for letting them run it.
The fundraising work the volunteer fire brigades do involves giving to charities, people and organisations in need. Over the last year, they gave $500 to Josie, the little girl who had serious eye problems and diseases and needed interstate treatment. They gave $250 to Camp Quality, and $250 to the Girl Guides at Humpty Doo after the group lost the premises it used for weekly meetings. They also contributed $250 to the aged pensioners Christmas party and $250 to both the Christmas combined toy appeal and CareFlight. As volunteers, they are raising money and giving to other people.
The brigade and I also want to thank the Coolalinga district banks because they provide sponsorship to the value of $1500 for the Santa Run, which makes that happen. I know the Coolalinga district banks and Lucia English also give $1500 to the Humpty Doo volunteer fire brigade for it to do its Santa Run.
They also have people who volunteer time, services and goods. One of those people is Peter Anderson of Anderson Constructions in Howard Springs for the shade structure project …
Mr Wood: And the BMX track.
Ms PURICK: The BMX track too, thank you member for Nelson. Peter has donated plant, labour, fabrication and concrete for the shade structure and picked up and delivered the outside concrete tables – there are two brand new tables – with the crane truck and did not charge anyone. The shade is not quite up yet, but I know it will not be too far away.
The brigade has had a great, busy year and gives an enormous amount of time at weekends. There is always someone on call over the weekends pretty much throughout the year, not just during the Dry Season when there are a lot of grass fires.
In closing, I acknowledge some of the volunteers associated with this brigade. Lou Cowan – Robert is his real name but everyone knows him as Lou – is the captain. Thank you to Elaine Cowan, James Skinner, Allan Kassman, Zack Van Loenhout, Warwick Brown, Cameron Hardy, Erin McCormack, David Richardson, Jenny Van Loenhout and Jo Van Loenhout. Associate members are Graham Stacey, who has been the treasurer for many years – he is a lovely man – Beth Stacey, the secretary …
Mr Wood: They are the best trifles in the world.
Ms PURICK: Beth Stacey’s, Graham’s or both?
Mr Wood: Beth does them well.
Ms PURICK: Beth makes them, and they have a lot of food when you go to their AGMs. Beth sells the meat trays at the Humpty Doo pub. Those two are real trojans for that brigade, and it would not be a brigade without them. There is also Megan Baker.
Thank you to everyone for giving your time so generously so others in our community can be safe. It is sometimes the volunteer people who are first at accident scenes on the road because they are closest and the NT fire service, police and ambulance back them up. Thank you Koolpinyah volunteer fire brigade for your work last year. I wish members’ the best for this coming year.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I pay tribute to a beautiful young man. The hockey community of the Top End is grieving, and it will gather in numbers on Friday to attend a funeral. I speak on behalf of my hockey club, the East Darwin Storm Hockey Club, and will talk about the comments my hockey club committee put around to players and club members today. I will speak the words of my club’s committee now:
- It is with heavy hearts that we acknowledge the passing of East Darwin Storm Hockey Club player Brad Dienhoff. Tragically, Brad lost his life in a car accident early last Sunday morning returning from a fishing trip. Brad and his family are long-term, well-known members of the hockey community. For many years, Brad, his mother Tina, father Peter and sisters Amy and Emily have been integral to the success of East Darwin Storm Hockey Club in a variety of ways, as players, through sponsorship and by generously volunteering their home and time for fundraising and social events.
Having played with East Darwin since joining the Under 8s, Brad was a skilled member of the A Grade men’s side, a well-loved and respected club player and NT representative. He was admired by all who knew and played with him.
Brad was also a wonderful mentor and coach who enjoyed spending time with the young players, passing on his skills and his love of our game. His signature advice was to practice but, above all, to have fun. His smile, laughter, love of life and obvious enjoyment of our game will be greatly missed around the stadium and on the field as we move into the 2014 season.
A celebration of Brad’s life will begin at 3.30 pm on Friday at Darwin Funeral Services. Under 16s games scheduled for Friday night at 5.30 pm will be postponed and played later in the season to allow those who wish to do so to pay their respects. A minute’s silence will be observed before the start of all senior games this weekend as a mark of respect for Brad and his family. Black arm bands will be made available at benches for players to wear.
I am sure you will join with us in extending our deepest sympathies to Brad’s family and closest friends at this time of great sorrow. He will be sadly missed.
The East Darwin Storm Hockey Club Committee.
Brad’s beautiful young life was tragically taken in a car accident as he was coming back from doing what he loved. He was a classic Territory lad and loved his fishing.
Our love and support go to this family. The hockey community is rallying around them. Brad will never be forgotten. He has left an indelible mark on our hockey community because he was such a bright, beautiful, generous, giving and talented young player. My deepest condolences go to the family and friends.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I will talk about something I am sure the Minister for Health will be interested in. Some time ago a claim was made by Nova Peris, a senator for the Northern Territory, about the increase in hospital admissions. There was also an ABC Fact Check report in relation to that, which said it was not exactly accurate.
Statistics are statistics. A long time ago I worked with statistics, and you can do a lot of things with them. It depends where you put your argument. With the BDR, a lot of statistics have been released. I have said time and time again that if you wanted to make a real comment on whether the BDR was working, it needed to run for at least three years before you could say it had an effect.
I read a little more from the ABC website which related to statements made. It is worth reading this. It does not necessarily say it is good. In some places it says it did not have an effect, but I will read it in because it has a balanced approach to statistics:
- Dr Michael Livingston from the National Drug & Alcohol Research Centre says, ‘There is no obvious reduction in admissions following the introduction of the banned drinker register, but something clearly shifted when it was removed, particularly in Alice Springs’.
Dr Livingston says from this data alone it is not possible to say for sure what caused that shift.
He suggests looking at trends of non-alcohol-related admissions over the same period would indicate whether the trends are specific to alcohol or whether they are driven by broader hospital system factors.
The health department did not provide such numbers to Fact Check, but in charts produced by the department, non-alcohol- related emergency admissions at the Alice Springs hospital do not appear to mirror the upward spike seen in alcohol-related admissions.
- Jason Ferris from the Institute of Social Science Research at the University of Queensland, who specialises in biostatistics research and has an interest in alcohol policy, modelled the data for Fact Check.
- He says there is one trend line from July 2005 to May 2012 which shows alcohol-related admissions ‘significantly increasing’. He says the trend then dramatically turns upwards between May 2012 and April 2013. This means the change in trend began before the banned drinker register was abolished in August 2012.
Mr Ferris says the trend during this second period is ‘significantly greater than the previous trend’.
He says the introduction of the register ‘doesn’t appear to have had an observable early effect on the admission data’. While it was in place, the trend turned significantly upwards, he says.
‘So the removal of the ban could not be solely responsible for the upturn in presentations as these had already begun. I would believe something else was going on that triggered these increased presentations (or reporting).’
- 80 per cent increase: The data shows that during the 14 months the register was in place there were 3426 alcohol-related emergency presentations, and over the next 14 months, to October 2013, there was 6183 presentations.
This represents an 80 per cent increase in the 14 months after the register was scrapped. The population growth in the Northern Territory at the time was below the national average, at about 1.5 per cent per year.
- Fact Check converted the data to percentage changes. The Royal Darwin Hospital is up 29 per cent, Katherine Hospital up 54 per cent, Gove Hospital up 55 per cent, Tennant Creek up 107 per cent, and the Alice Springs Hospital up 86 per cent.
The department’s figures show Alice Springs has the highest numbers of alcohol-related emergency presentations, even though the city has around 27 000 permanent residents, compared to Darwin’s 130 000.
I do not know if I can table this document, but it shows the five hospitals. Alice Springs has an enormous spike. Even though the others went up, that spike must have certainly affected the overall increase in alcohol-related emergency presentations.
I seek leave to table the document.
Leave granted.
Mr WOOD: I continue:
More than 90% of the people being admitted to the Alice Springs emergency department for alcohol-related problems are Indigenous.
In an analysis released with the data, the department said: ‘Alcohol-related emergency department presentations show a slight trend increase since July 2011. The rate of this increase is more marked for Alice Springs Hospital than the other hospitals. Alcohol-related emergency department presentations to Darwin and Gove hospitals appear stable.’
Current policy: Dr John Boffa, who works in public health in Alice Springs, says the register was working, but it was not in place long enough to see the effects.
He says that directly after the register was abolished, alcohol-related presentations to emergency departments ‘dramatically’ increased.
He says hospital staff were overwhelmed with the numbers of people presenting to emergency and the Government was forced to implement a new strategy to kerb the spike. Police presence was increased at alcohol outlets.
Earlier this month, the Chief Minister of the NT, Adam Giles, told 7.30:
‘We’re seeing a reduction in wholesale consumption of alcohol and what we put that down to is more targeted or better targeted policing operations on the street in the Northern Territory since we’ve taken office.’
‘The higher statistics recorded in Alice Springs reflect in part the increased capacity of the $23 million expansion of the Alice Springs emergency department opened last June.’
However the dramatic change in trend occurred a year before the renovation was complete.
This is the verdict:
- Senator Peris is correct that alcohol-related emergency admissions in Northern Territory hospitals have increased by 80 per cent since the banned drinker register was scrapped. However attributing this significant change to the banned drinker register does not present the full picture.
Firstly, the register did not stop the long-term increasing trend in alcohol-related emergency presentations.
Also, the serious upward spike in alcohol-related emergency presentations began in May 2012 when the register was still in place.
This is the important line we should note:
- Experts say it is too early to assess the reasons for the spike.
These statistics are based on alcohol-related emergency presentations. There will be other people who say, anecdotally – one of the supermarket owners in Fannie Bay said when the Banned Drinker Register was in there were fewer people humbugging. Those sorts of figures will not necessarily turn up in the alcohol-related emergency presentations.
On the other side of the ledger, in going through the ABC website there was a policeman – I do not know whether he was an ex-policeman – who used to work in Tennant Creek who said it did not make any difference.
My argument is not so much about the Banned Drinker Register, it is about the statistics and how one draws conclusions from statistics. Alcohol is a complex subject; the issues we are dealing with are very complex. You have to be careful to not only make sure there is enough time for a real analysis of the issues, but to look at the stats and see if they mean what you think. Were there other causes, what did the stats reflect and where in the Northern Territory did this happen?
Was it different in Darwin than in Alice Springs? Did Alice Springs cause the spike? I do not know, but sometimes statistics need a lot more analysis. I say, while the minister is here, I am happy the government is reviewing mandatory alcohol rehabilitation orders as that needs to happen. My concern is they have not been in for very long. Again, six or seven months, perhaps a little longer, is a very short time. I am interested to know whether particular people are being tracked.
I raise the issue – it might sound a bit funny – of claims that Aboriginal people were being employed to work on SIHIP housing. Yes, that was Mr Smith, and the same person was still working 12 months later. In the case of mandatory alcohol rehabilitation, was Mr or Mrs X – have they gone back to drinking alcohol? Has anyone tracked those people to find out if there have been changes in their lives? We need statistics, but we need statistics that have some teeth and have been developed over an adequate period of time to get a genuine trend and find out if there have been changes.
In the case of people who have gone through mandatory alcohol rehabilitation, for someone to say, ‘Yes, it has had an effect’ or, ‘No, it has not’ – there are other affects that may not be easy for people to judge. I have always said that sometimes mandatory alcohol rehabilitation gives the public some peace as well as trying to give a person a new chance in life.
It will be good to see if the department is tracking people to see if there have been some changes. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I will highlight the plight of a particularly brave young woman. I refer to Ms Isabelle Ruiz, a 19-year old woman who suffers from a rare medical condition called Atypical Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome, or AHUS for short.
Ms Ruiz’ grandmother, Mrs Mary Meldrum, resides in Central Australia and it is through her family in the Territory I have been made aware of her situation.
The condition primarily affects Ms Ruiz’ kidney function, causing abnormal clots to form in small blood vessels in the kidneys. These clots can cause serious medical problems if they restrict or block blood flow. This terrible condition is not age specific; it can occur at any age. The disease is life-threatening; however, there is hope in the form of a drug called Soliris. Without this drug there is more than a 65% chance that patients suffering from this disease will die. Patients require treatment via dialysis.
If treatment is unavailable or unreachable they develop permanent kidney damage within one year of diagnosis. Unfortunately for people with this condition, like Isabelle, the drug Soliris is not yet available through the Life Saving Drugs Programme.
The Life Saving Drugs Programme is an Australian government initiative that provides subsidised access to those eligible for expensive yet lifesaving medication. Submissions on behalf of sufferers of AHUS have been made to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. The patient support group of Australia has urged the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee to recommend federal Health minister Peter Dutton include Soliris in the Life Saving Drugs Programme for sufferers of AHUS.
Without the support of that program, patients are left to foot what is truly a prohibitive bill. It is estimated that treatment for Isabelle would come at a cost of $600 000 per year, putting it out of reach for her and her family.
Most Australian families would find it impossible to find $600 000 a year to pay for treatments. I think that equates to around $24 000 per fortnight per treatment.
Before a drug is made available under the Life Saving Drugs Programme, it must be accepted by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee as clinically effective. Soliris has been available for patients suffering another very rare life threatening disease of the blood, so advocates hope Soliris will receive favourable consideration for use by patients suffering from AHUS.
This month the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee will meet to consider whether the drug fits the stringent criteria of the Life Saving Drugs Programme. In anticipation, the patient support group of Australia has been campaigning for a favourable outcome and has collected many signatures in support.
More than 22 000 Australians have pledged their support on this petition, with just under 1000 of those signatures coming from my hometown of Alice Springs. Alice Springs is a tightknit community and one in which there is a strong sense of community and helping each other when it is required. Last Friday, 21 March, the Alice Springs community turned out in droves at a fundraiser for Isabelle. Over 150 people attended the event at the Alice Springs Golf Club and raised an incredible $30 000 on that night.
I would like to acknowledge and thank all those who donated to the event and to those who attended. A special thanks to Annie M, Annie P, Marilyn, Mary, Shirley, Andrea and Neil for their fantastic efforts in organising the event. Mary was in the thick of the action, and she has not lost the power of her voice.
In closing, I encourage the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee to look upon this application favourably, and I look forward to hearing of a successful outcome in Canberra. My heart goes out to Ms Ruiz, her family and friends and I join many in the Alice Springs community in wishing not only for a favourable bureaucratic outcome in Canberra, but a quality of life for this amazing young Australian and fellow sufferers. Thank you.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016