2016-04-19
Madam Speaker Purick took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I am not wearing my robes today, and neither are the Clerks, because my robe is not where it should have been. It will be back tomorrow.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, pursuant to Standing Order 167, I advise that I have received Message No 32 from His Honour the Administrator notifying assent to the bills passed at the March 2016 sittings of the Assembly. The message is dated 11 April 2016.
Mr BARRETT (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I advise that Regulation 10 of the Ports Management Regulations No 13 of 2015 was repealed at the executive council meeting of 9 March 2016. I therefore withdraw the proposed motion of disallowance and table the correspondence from the Minister for Transport confirming the repeal.
Continued from 16 March 2016.
Mr GUNNER (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, Labor supports this bill and we thank the public servants for their hard work over 12 months. They went into extensive detail to make sure we had this omnibus bill which streamlines the registration process.
Looking through the bill, the second reading and the explanatory memorandum reminded me a lot of when I was shadow Attorney-General. It is the kind of the work the Attorney-General introduces regularly, where hard work has been done by the department to fix things and establish a sensible series of reforms for consideration. As I did with those bills, I read the second reading to see how long the minister spoke for in explaining this series of very small, sensible reforms. It is amazing how 12 months of hard work can be reduced to two pages of speech notes. A lot of hard work has to go into a bill like this.
The bill makes a number of changes, perhaps most critical is the extension of how long you can have a term of licence or registration from 12 months to three or five years. We can all understand the frustration of having to go in every 12 months. This takes that frustration and work away. We are also changing the common expiry date. It was not simply about doing the work every 12 months; everyone was doing all the work at once. By changing that and having a sensible transition process in place, moving the common expiry date to a one-, three- or five-year option, you are reducing work for the business as well as spreading out the workload that falls onto public servants. It is a very sensible reform which affects people such as property agents, commercial and private agents, auctioneers, tobacco retailers and wholesalers of liquor.
We should not underestimate the kind of work that has to go into this from the public service to get the detail right, find the problems, come up with solutions and comb through bills to pull it all together.
There are also a couple of other reforms – extending the term of a bore construction permit from 12 months to two years. There are around 400 to 480 permits issued per year and we are changing those terms from 12 months to two years, but you get a choice. You may still want a 12-month licence term and there may be sensible reasons for wanting to do that work every 12 months, but let us give people the choice and take away the pressure if we can.
It is good to see this come forward as an omnibus looking at a range of sectors and dealing with them all at once. I have, essentially, summarised the bill and the minister’s two pages of speaking notes. They are good, sensible reforms which Labor supports. These are the types of bills that governments of all stripes introduce and oppositions of all stripes support.
Madam Speaker, I support this bill. I thank the officials who worked on it and thought through the transitional processes, because that is important. You cannot make this change overnight; you need some transitional arrangements in place that work for all parties in both the public service and private sector. From our briefing and the conversations I have had, we understand that those processes are good. We support this bill and commend the minister for bringing it to the House.
Mr BARRETT (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I also support this bill and thank staff in the Department of Business for their hard work, especially the red tape reduction task force that was set up to work on ways to improve the efficiency of the public sector in the way these things are handled.
From a business perspective it is interesting. We always think government is not a corporation, in the sense that corporations look to maximise returns to shareholders. The government should also strive for efficiency because our remit is to make the best possible use of taxpayer funds. In relation to that, we like to see assessments of processes, structures and work flows, innovation and technology being incorporated into processes as it becomes available to increase efficiency, thereby allowing the public service to maximise service for taxpayer funds.
With that in mind, having run through some of the significant reforms that have occurred, allowing high-risk work licences and permits granted in other jurisdictions to be recognised in the Territory is a very big step forward.
Having worked on a worksite where high-risk licences were required, it was always an issue when people came from other states. They were eminently qualified for the position and very good at their job, but there were issues with their licences. I remember being busy on the docks, and the company I worked for needed to bring in some extra crane operators, who were company employees. They shifted a few to Darwin from a port that was not as busy for a short period of time while there was a lot of work on. It was a struggle for those guys because the company had to go through many processes to make sure those employees were licensed and able to use the crane.
Allowing the high-risk work licences to be transferred from one state to another in a seamless way made it a lot easier to get the red tape work done in time, particularly when it was busy. Things like that improve the efficiency of businesses and mean they can offer a better service to their clients, improving the structure of how the economy is working.
That is a great example of one change that created a material effect on the way business was done on the ground and how much we could do at our end, in the public sector.
Broadening the range of workers eligible for undertaking major inspections of crane and amusement devices means that when there is a lot of work to be done in a short space of time, there is no backlog. Machines still cost money when they sit idle. The faster you can get the machine working the faster the services can be provided, and business can keep operating. Being able to certify and inspect that things are in good working order is very important for business.
Allowing businesses to use their own plan and structure design verifiers rather than independent verifiers, which are hard to find, is important for the same reason. Companies having their own plan, and structure verifiers who can certify the machine is ready to go, means there is no bottleneck in trying to find somebody who is isolated from the business structure to do it.
The NTG website’s 24-hour online lodgement and tracking of invoices by suppliers to government is important because cash flow is one of the two most important things in operating a business, the other being the asset and liability register. People say it is hard to keep operating and doing business. They find themselves in trouble when the systems that organise payment for their work are slow, so they run into cash flow problems. Elevating this has made business a lot simpler in the Northern Territory and improves the things on the ground for people who need to get work done.
Waiting times for various licences in business centres have been dropped. Faster decision-making frameworks for liquor, gaming and other licences help these processes. Tourism NT’s accreditation policy of moving to preferential treatment instead of a mandatory brace arrangement provides operators the opportunity to be involved in Tourism NT’s marketing and other activities.
We have been able to look at ways for the community and businesses to save. Removal of light vehicle registration stickers is simple and will save business and the community about $2.4m and 60 000 hours.
Simplified approval processes for unit titling for subdivision will save applicants two weeks on average. There have been savings to the business community’s time at the Motor Vehicle Registry by providing vehicle registration renewal applications online, on the MVR app or at an Australia Post office. The MVR app is fantastic. Having the app means you can always be aware of your car’s registration status. I have seen people use the app to check if other cars are registered. It is important for people, especially those in business, to keep abreast of where there vehicles are at. They can check in real time online without going to an MVR or navigating a tricky website. This simple introduction of a technological solution to an issue has allowed businesses to save money. Mums and dads who are trying to get through the working week – if they do not have to go to MVR and sit in line with others, it saves them time and they can do more important things that are important to their family structure.
A streamlined application process for high-risk work licences is important. Keeping the time between getting your qualification and getting your licence as minimal as possible is important for workers who want to start work and get paid in jobs they are accredited to do. The process saved businesses and individuals 58 460 days across all the businesses in the Territory. That is a solid saving.
InvoiceNTG – of the 550 000 invoices submitted to government, the online lodgement saves time and money. The reduced NT Build levy rate from 0.3% to 0.1% and raising the levy threshold to one million has saved around $2m.
Simplified application processes for dangerous goods driver’s licences saved over 200 applicants the $12 application fee and time at MVR. One of the first things I did as a member of parliament – minister Styles will probably remember this less than fondly – was sit at MVR and take photos of how many people had happy faces sitting in the waiting room. I sent that picture to him and asked if there was a way we could streamline the process and make it better.
I am happy that so much work has gone into this. I thank the people at the Motor Vehicle Registry and in the Department of Transport for the work they have done in streamlining this. People have better things to do than sit in line at places like Motor Vehicle Registry for hours, waiting for various types of applications to be processed.
I am glad they have taken on new initiatives, such as the push-button gate, so you know which counter you are supposed to go to. You get a number, so instead of standing in line you can wait in a comfy chair. Things like that make the customer service experience in the Motor Vehicle Registry better. It means those waiting in line are doing so with a better attitude, which means our staff on the front line are dealing with happier customers, which makes the working environment better. Sometimes I feel sorry for people on the front line, particularly where there are bottlenecks and people get grumpy. If we can make this process better it makes their work life better as well.
Streamlined land clearing application processes can save up to three months. A concurrent process for rezoning and development applications can save up to three months in the approval process. Building approvals are now online, saving over 7800 applicants time and money. Moving things into a paperless system, which technology has made possible, allows us to become more efficient. It means we can get through more work in less time. That is important for developers, for people who want to get into their small house sooner and for businesses that want to get into their building and get on with it.
There is faster processing of business-related licences, and they are now issued over the counter at the Territory Business Centre. This has saved about 800 days. I remember being on the plane talking to a business owner about the myriad of licences they had to operate a highway house that had accommodation. They needed separate licences for seafood, their kitchen, alcohol, selling cigarettes, and accommodation, and they all had different expiry dates and terms. There were people coming out at different times to check on the licence renewal to make sure they were complying with all the regulations within that licence.
It was interesting talking to that person, who said, ‘We could align these processes so people can apply for multiple licences at the same time. One person from the department who understands all those regulations can come out and do it all at once, and they do not need to see them again for a set period of time, be it one, two or three years, whatever is decided.’
I remember wondering at the time how much money the Northern Territory government expends and how many times people have to fly – the member for Nhulunbuy would be happy to know this person lived in Nhulunbuy – over the course of a year for those five or six sets of licences they require to operate their business. Would it not be simpler and a better use of taxpayers’ money if one person went over there and knocked it over in one hit?
This kind of thinking, which brings this into line, makes a difference to people on the ground who are running businesses. It means their interaction with government is less onerous. It means they do not resent government employee visits and they can do what they do best and get on with business.
The government’s job is to facilitate and sometimes regulate business to ensure business is operating in a triple bottom-line, positive manner. We need to find ways businesses can do things better in the complex structure of the way they interact with government.
Non-partial use permits extended from annual permits for up to 30 years saves 40 hours for each application every year. When people on the land, trying to manage properties and what they are doing, have to waste a week going through the application process, it cuts into their productivity. Government should not reduce the productivity of business because of red tape; it should find ways to regulate but improve the productivity of business.
A review of red tape for the construction and development sector and the automotive industry has been complemented with recommendations approved for implementation. Sector reviews have commenced for the tourism and NGO sectors. We have a long way to go in this space. Talking to tourism operators in the Territory – some of them have fantastic ideas of how government can work with businesses and tie them together to make them work better.
Through networking events like October Business Month we can see that businesses are very keen to work together in the Northern Territory, and look at synergies and ways they can join together to maximise each other’s productivity. That is a great environment. It is a healthy environment for business and the community when people want to work with each other.
I looked at this tourism operator and the ideas they had around centralising touchscreen-type things. Businesses like hotels could bring in a myriad of tourism operators where people could then, in any language, instead of trying to pick up a brochure and navigate it, sit at a screen and say, ‘What do I want to do today?’ It might say, ‘What is on today?’, and you can push that on the screen. If they are interested in seeing a crocodile they push the crocodile so only tourism information that relates to that will display. They can choose what business they want to visit depending on what they want.
That is easier than trolling through a wall of brochures that cost a lot in printing and are inefficient, difficult to manage and very time consuming for Tourism NT. A system that builds efficiencies within the tourism market means government in support of this can help the experience of tourists coming into the Northern Territory to quickly and efficiently access what they want to access in the way of tourism. It means a lot of space is saved in the lobbies of hotels and motels that would have been taken up by a myriad of brochures. People can read in their own language and see pictures and movies of what experience they are likely to have on a tour.
This makes tourism a lot more attractive. People can go home and say, ‘I went to Darwin, Katherine, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs or Nhulunbuy and I was at the hotel. It was fantastic to be able to see quickly what I could do in the area, what was on that day, what festivals were happening and what attractions there were – how I could maximise my trip and make my tour as fun and appropriate as possible.’
That is the sort of thinking our government needs, when looking forward, to make sure we diversify our economy and support businesses that operate in the Northern Territory. I support this from an efficiency perspective with an economics background to see the Department of Business continue to work on red tape reduction. This government has a good track record of supporting local business through some trying times which involved some serious headwinds. This government is putting these things in place to make business easier.
Madam Speaker, I support this bill.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for introducing this, and the member for Blain for his comments. I wish I had some of his background in relation to savings. It would have made this a better debate if we had some of that before us today. However, I laugh when he says we are in a paperless society.
Mr Barrett: Except in parliament.
Mr WOOD: No, the government says, ‘Here’s the form; you print it.’ Those out there cop the paper bills because the government does not print; it sends it by e-mail and we have to print it.
We need to be careful when we talk about red tape that it does not become a stigma. Red tape is the name it has been given, which presumes business is being held back by unnecessary regulation. That may be the case, and I thank the minister for the changes today, which I support. Red tape is also another way of saying we need to make sure businesses operate correctly and that consumers and the environment are protected. We have to ensure, in the process of being so-called efficient, we do not become deficient in the responsibility government has towards consumers and the environment. We do not want to bandy this around as if all red tape is bad.
The member for Blain raised some interesting issues, one being that subdivision applications are now much quicker. Before going to the Development Consent Authority you have 14 days to comment and that application is normally before the DCA fairly quickly. However, the danger of reducing time for comment is that people may not have the time to comment because they do other things in their life besides look at planning notices. I look at them, but that is part of my job. Others who may be busy working do not always have time to comment on matters which may affect them. We need to ensure we have that balance.
The member for Blain also mentioned the car stickers and how the apps are fantastic, but not everyone – especially older people – has apps. Sometimes that is forgotten. Yes, it is the modern way to do things. You hop on the website and everything will be fine. I was on the website the other day, looking for an application to renew a licence. It was not for me; it was for someone else. I thought, ‘Why doesn’t this have an ID number?’ Then I realised the person had to get a photograph taken. But it was not easy to see and I kept banging away on the form that came up on the screen. Thankfully my daughter told me that if I had read the bottom of the form I would have seen that I could not do it that way because a photograph was needed. I tried to do it via the website, but obviously there are things that cannot be done via that process. It has helped many people though.
The only complaint I receive is that MVR closes at 4 pm, but I think I have written to the minister about that, and it is not open on Saturday morning. Even closing at 5 pm on Friday would be a benefit. There are those who do not use the online processes and those who work and do not have a chance to visit MVR during normal working hours. I sometimes think we do not fit in very well with those people. We have hours set aside for members of the public service who operate MVR, but they are serving people who do not always have the chance to go there during office hours. I know the argument will be that they can do it online, which is good, but there are people who still, for whatever reason – it might be having a licence renewed with a photograph or a complicated matter than needs personal attention rather than being done online. We need to make sure in cutting red tape that we do not also cut service.
If we are cutting red tape and making business more efficient, is there a reduction in the cost to government? Are there fewer people working for the public service now there is not as much need for people because much of the work is being done online? Has there been a complementary reduction in cost to government? I heard the figures, but are they paper figures or real ones? Are we still employing 10 people to do the job that was done before when the only difference is there is less paperwork? I am interested to know whether those evaluations have been done, because when the government says it is reducing red tape we need to see the benefits to government as well.
I was not sure the member for Blain was talking about changes to the non-pastoral activity on pastoral properties. I would have thought, as the norm for pastoral properties is to run cattle, any non-pastoral activity would require a reasonable amount of processing as a range of issues would need to be looked at. I was unaware of what changes the government has introduced to make the process more efficient. We must ensure not only are there savings to the business, but also protection of the environment if those changes to the Pastoral Land Act affect the environment.
The member for Blain also mentioned businesses having multiple licences that need to be checked. I fully understand what he is talking about and I sympathise, but how it would work in practice is complicated. If you look at the premises from a gambling perspective, there might be the liquor inspector, a health inspector and other inspectors. I do not know how you would have a multi-licence. Obviously those people come from different departments. Whilst the member for Blain’s intent to reduce the number of times someone has to visit, fill out forms and inspect premises is good – if that could be done by one person it would be better – how that would work from the government’s perspective, I am not sure. If you are required to get inspections from different departments, how would you combine that so there was only one inspection covering all the requirements? It is a good idea in theory, but how it will work in practice, I am not sure.
I am happy to support this amendment – another amendment has ended up on the desk, but I am not sure what that is about or whether it is important. It was brought to my attention that in the Auctioneers Act under section 8 it says:
It was asked at the briefing as to why that is to do with NTCAT and why it has not changed. I am interested to know – when we are talking about reducing red tape, there was an opportunity to bring that into line with other appeals to go through NTCAT. I presume the reason we are making NTCAT the place to take these appeals is to make things more efficient. It is only a minor thing and I suppose it can be picked up at a later stage. Considering the government was amending the Auctioneers Act I thought this would be a good opportunity to change that section of the act so the applicant may appeal to the NTCAT instead of the Local Court.
I support what you are trying to do, minister. It is important. It is not so much about red tape; it is about making sure the government operates in an efficient way and is not duplicating its processes. It is about making sure businesses are not being asked to do things that could be done in a simpler way without reducing the requirements of business to do things correctly and make sure the consumer and the environment are protected. It highlights that there is always a need for government to become more efficient by looking at its processes. Does it have processes that could improve efficiency? To some extent government is a business. Does it look at internal red tape? How long does it take within a department to look at an application? How long does it take for a letter to go from A to B? When a consumer writes to the government, how long does it take to go to the minister and be responded to?
I know those issues have been around for a long time, but it is important that government looks at whether internal red tape is in need of review so the average Territorian is confident that when dealing with the government it does not take longer than necessary to look at an issue.
With red tape reduction the balance must be to make sure it does not reduce the rights of the consumer and remove protection of the environment. They are not the only things to be looked at, but they must be protected by the red tape needed to make sure government is doing the right thing by the consumer and the environment.
Mr CHANDLER (Education): Madam Speaker, I support this bill. When we came to government just over three-and-a-half years ago there was an enormous amount of red tape built into the way the NT government worked every day. It has taken a long time to get to the bottom of the issue of red tape because not every issue you face happens every day. You could be months into a job before you realise red tape has caused a hold up.
Legislation and government processes need to pass the common sense test. Things have been changed by this government that did not stack up. They did not pass the common sense test.
Labor is exceptionally good at creating bureaucracy. I do not think it is lost on many people that we choose to describe bureaucracy as red tape. Red is often the colour associated with the Labor Party, and it should be; a lot of red tape has been created over the years by Labor governments not only in the Northern Territory, but around the country.
As the member for Nelson pointed out, not all red tape or process is something we should shy away from. In fact, much of it is needed. We must ensure that our environment is protected and that Australian standards are followed, and that anybody interacting with government follows a due process. No one doubts that.
When the unnecessary duplication of bureaucracy and red tape is introduced, you start to question it. Many things we have found, on this side of the House, are just that. They are duplications of bureaucracy that are not needed and have, in many cases, held up the Northern Territory from becoming the future Territory, or possible state, that it could be, at least in the time frame it is taking to develop the Territory. Red tape often gets in the way of good development, and prevents things occurring that would benefit many Territorians into the future.
This bill supports the government’s commitment to making it easier and simpler to do business in the Northern Territory. We are reducing unnecessary paperwork by extending terms, prefilling renewal forms, placing transactions online and reducing reporting requirements.
The member for Nelson spoke about MVR. I congratulate the Department of Transport for many of the reforms made at MVR which have sped up processes by introducing new programs. For instance, years ago many people complained about how long they had to wait at the test sheds on Goyder Road. Today you can go online and make a booking so you have a prearranged time. That has tremendously reduced the time that people have to wait. We have received feedback about that program that it is winning people over, hands down. No longer do you have to wait for hours, in some cases slowly moving your vehicle, stopping and starting, and waiting to get to the test shed. You can call or go online, make a booking and turn up at your designated time.
The amendments in this bill will reduce compliance costs for over 500 real estate agents across the Northern Territory; 150 commercial and private agents, which include inquiry agents; private investigators; debt collectors and bailiffs; 105 auctioneers; 30 liquor wholesalers; and 300 businesses in the retail, tourism and hospitality sectors in relation to the tobacco retail licence.
In my portfolios we are implementing a range of reforms. Education recently implemented online teacher registration renewal, streamlining registration for approximately 3000 teachers across the Northern Territory. In Transport, almost 30 initiatives are already implemented, such as vehicle registration checks, which are now only required every five years, 10 years and then annually. The introduction of these changes, along with the new 10-year driver’s licences, has allowed more Territorians to make these transactions online or over the phone without having to visit the MVR office and wait in line, something we all have had to do. I recently read somewhere that there was a quantum figure for the amount of time people will spend in queues in their lifetime and it is surprising to know how much time that is. Much of that time I would much prefer sleeping, but it is probably not a good idea to sleep in a queue because you will have someone jump in. However, I digress.
In MVR reforms, in addition to the one-, two- and five-year licence terms, we have extended driver’s licences to 10 years. Extending light vehicle registration inspections from five years and every year thereafter to five years, 10 years and every year thereafter frees up much time people would have spent in queues – especially from a safety point of view. More MVR transactions have been placed online so people from businesses do not have to wait in line at MVR, as I have described. MVR Quick Pay allows driver’s licences and vehicle registrations to be renewed online.
Commercial passenger vehicle reform includes removing requirements for a business to have a courtesy vehicle licence.
The member for Nelson rightly pointed out that not everyone has a computer, although that gap is reducing significantly every year. In fact, it is not often these days that you will find a young person who does not have a smart phone, tablet or computer, or at least access to one. Whilst the member for Nelson is correct that there is an element of society living in environments that make it more difficult to access online facilities, the system today is far better than what it was a few years ago. People have access today.
MVR registration renewal is one aspect where things have improved dramatically. We always relied on a renewal notice to be sent out about six weeks before your registration was due. That has not changed; renewal notices can still be sent out to people six weeks prior to their registration being due for renewal, but we have improved the process to enable smarter technologies to allow people access to more information. It is less likely for renewal such as registration to slip through the gaps, which some people suggest happened previously.
In regard to infrastructure, we have simplified the tender assessment process by updating the conditions of tendering to enable the Department of Infrastructure to fast-track assessments through shortlisting compliant Tier 3, 4 and 5 tenders. In a civil contracts construction area, work zone traffic management training and permits to work in the road reserve were mapped as a part of the Department of Business process relating to red tape reduction in March 2015. Since that time the Traffic Management Association has formed the Northern Territory branch, which has allowed a forum to improve interactions with government. There is a national agenda in relation to the harmonisation of traffic management training in which the Northern Territory is participating.
Red tape is not always about removing regulatory requirements; it can involve adding regulatory certainty, which is an important fact. It has provided greater regulatory certainty for developers with the release of the development of guidelines for Northern Territory controlled roads, and when construction and development is likely to have an impact on the road network the guidelines provide clarity for developers around their obligations and detail on how approval is granted.
Regulatory certainty for port management, with port management acts and regulations, supports private investment and major projects. The regulatory certainty reduces uncertainty for investors and facilitates investment in the Territory while maintaining protections for consumers, the community and the environment. They were articulated well by the member for Nelson. There will always be a level of regulatory burden on anybody who wants to work with government, whether it is a developer, an investor or someone starting a small business. There will always be a level of regulatory requirements.
We should be working as hard as we possibly can to ensure that process is as streamlined as possible and is not unnecessarily duplicated. My philosophy when it comes to government is that it should not be in business, but should facilitate business. The more we can facilitate business and stimulate the economy the more new jobs we create. Labor thinks the only way to provide jobs is to grow a bureaucracy. We inherited a government full of people in departments looking for ways to ensure the continuation of their jobs. That, unfortunately, in many cases led to over-duplication of bureaucracy, which this government has worked extremely hard to deal with.
We need a balanced regulatory framework; that is essential. This government is committed to red tape reduction. Any way that the government can save Territorians time on compliance should be done. Reducing administration requirements on businesses, individuals and non-government organisations allows more time to focus on productivity, and that is the key. Productivity in business and government can only occur when our processes are as streamlined as possible.
We should not criticise or make fun of red tape because, as the member for Nelson said, there will always be a level of red tape. We have to ensure compliance in certain areas, whether that is looking at the good work this government has attempted to do over the last few years, even on fracking – ensuring the regulations around fracking in the Territory are strengthened and become world class.
As a former minister for the Environment I was very active to ensure that we improved on where we came from. Together with the member for Katherine I had the privilege, also the sadness, to see some of the many legacy mines left in the Territory – Redbank comes to mind, which we visited several years ago. We saw what can happen when you do not have the right regulatory framework around mining. This government is changing that.
If you look at the wrecking ball approach the Labor opposition wants to take to our economy, and what it wants to introduce, including a moratorium on fracking, you will see it is nothing more than red tape. We are trying to improve the regulatory framework and make it as strong as we can, in fact, make it world class so that anybody who comes to the Northern Territory and wants to utilise the natural resources here can do so in an environment that has world’s best practice. But what have we come from? We have come from a Labor government that sat on this side of the House for nearly 12 years and did little in that space. In fact, it opened up the Territory to mining applications without regard for improving the regulations. The regulations were overseen by very intelligent and scientific minds, and they told Labor they were second-rate and not up to standard.
It has taken this Country Liberal government to look at that space very closely. Dr Hawke was commissioned by this government. I tell you, without fear or favour, it was a double-edged sword for this government to do that, because on setting the terms of reference – and me being the former Environment minister and partly responsible for Dr Hawke being commissioned by this government – we did not know what he would find or what the outcome would be.
Some people might think that governments set up reports and investigations from time to time knowing what the outcome will be. In this case we were not certain. It was a double-edged sword to go to someone as reputable as Dr Hawke and have him provide us with a report on how fracking was conducted in the Northern Territory, and then come up with his blueprint for the way forward.
Our peers suggest that the regulatory framework to build in the Northern Territory is world-class and world’s best practice – far better than we have ever had before – but the Labor opposition wants to introduce a moratorium, which is nothing more than red tape. We are not sure how long that moratorium will be for. There has been no time frame put around it. We have had indications of five years, and then the candidate for Blain suggested on radio that it was two years. We are not even sure. What kind of uncertainty does that provide to the business world creating jobs for Territorians?
That is a level of red tape, yet the Labor opposition says it stands for jobs in the Northern Territory. Like a wrecking ball, the Leader of the Opposition – I am not sure if he is really leading the party because there are diverse views on that side. It consists of ministers from the former Labor government, such as the member for Karama, an ex-Labor minister and member, who was responsible when they were in government for making many of the rules and regulations, or lack of, around fracking, but approving areas across the Territory to be licensed for fracking. All of a sudden there is this big change of face. We are trying to ensure any regulations we introduce are effective and improve on where we have come from. They are regulations that, as part of a government in their time, allowed fracking to occur.
We know it is important but the future is in renewables. But we have to get there and we are investing in renewables. At the same time I argue that looking at the oil age, then the gas age, it is probably hydrogen together with other renewables like solar which are the stepping stones. Gas, whilst not perfect, is far better than the oil age. The opposition is so adamant that it wants to prevent jobs in the Territory and industry growth.
The Chief Minister has worked damn hard to ensure that any royalties out of fracking go into education. That is something I stand behind him on and am impressed by. The Labor opposition wants to put all that at risk. There will be more to come on that.
Those members sat in government for nearly 12 years, allowed fracking to occur in the Northern Territory and approved fracking licensing. They were very much behind the oil and gas industry when they were in government. Now that they are in opposition and it becomes a populist argument, they are all against it. They are against INPEX and what it does onshore. They are against onshore fracking of gas, which has occurred for years. They are trying to tie into the public argument that fracking in the Northern Territory is somehow the same as coal seam gas fracking in Queensland. It is so much different.
They allowed this to occur under their watch without improving regulations, but they criticise this government for trying to improve the regulations around that industry.
Territorians will have a very clear decision to make come August this year. They can choose a future government that is nothing but a wrecking ball on our economy, business and what could secure the Northern Territory for years to come, or they could choose a first-term government that has done some amazing things in a very short period of time to right the wrongs of the past and rebalance things like the budget and take a projected debt of $5.5bn down to $2.4bn. That is a massive turnaround.
This morning I was listening to the Leader of the Opposition in the federal parliament talk about a clear difference between Malcolm Turnbull and what the government would look like if Australia chose a Labor government to lead this nation. I could not help but hear the hypocrisy in his voice when talking up Labor’s credentials and economy management. When John Howard’s Liberal Coalition government handed the tiller to the Labor government, the position this government was in financially to where it ended up when Tony Abbott took over government …
Mr Elferink: There was zero net debt.
Mr CHANDLER: There was zero debt. It was said that there were other countries that owed us money.
Mr Elferink: Even Gallop managed it in WA, so Labor can do it.
Mr CHANDLER: They are good at spending money and racking up a debt bill, yet at the same time they talk about wrecking our economy. The only thing that stimulates money back into government coffers is a vibrant economy. Everything they talk about they want to destroy. We are talking about reducing red tape and trying to stimulate the economy and facilitate business, which should be the want of every government. Every government should want a strong economy and a strong business world. We have inherited a government that was nearly broken and in debt, but in a few short years we have been able to right the wrongs of the debt situation and stimulate an economy to the point we are often looked at as the envy of the rest of the country.
There are other premiers, ministers and parts of government, from the federal government through to state jurisdictions, looking at the Northern Territory wondering what we are doing that is so different. Why have we been able to turn the ship around? How have we been able to keep CPI low? How has real growth in wages gone relatively smoothly and in an upward direction? This is all at the same time as taking care of one of the major issues Territorians had at the last election, which was the cost of living. We inherited a government that failed to release land and pushed housing prices up through stimulus packages at the same time as not releasing enough land. You wonder why we had some of the highest house and land prices in the country.
Territorians had had a gutful, which is why they put their confidence in the Country Liberals to right the wrongs. Now the Labor opposition, three-and-a-half years out of office – similarly, a Labor opposition in Canberra – is spruiking how good it was in government. I ask Territorians to remind themselves of what it was like three-and-a-half years ago, and what it was like at the Australian level three years ago. It was a different world because we were drowning in debt at a federal level and the Territory level. This government, under the leadership of Adam Giles, has pointed the Territory in a new direction. We are trying hard to diversify the economy.
At the same time we have a Labor opposition which keeps coming up with policies akin to a wrecking ball to our economy. God save us if we have a Labor government after the next election. God save Australia if we have a Labor government under the so-called leadership of Bill Shorten after the next election, because we will see this country and the Territory go backwards because of the policies they continue to bring forward. They want a big bureaucracy and more red tape. They do not like to work with the business world or to streamline businesses so we can see an improvement in our economy.
Red tape needs to be efficient at the same time as providing a safety net. As the member for Nelson said, you need minimal bureaucracy. You do not need the duplication of bureaucracy we have seen in the Territory. We are working hard to streamline that, but it takes time. Sometimes it takes years because you do not face every issue every day. A developer or business owner may describe to me a process they have just gone through. I sit there scratching my head, wondering why we have that process in place. When you drill down, what I go back to is that sometimes the processes do not pass the commonsense test. That should be the common denominator with this type of legislation.
I support this Red Tape Reduction (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, and I commend this government, under the leadership of Adam Giles, for the work we have done over the last three-and-a-half years on reducing red tape. There is more work to do because there is still a level of bureaucracy, duplication and process that we can streamline further.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, along with my colleagues, I support this bill. It is important that this parliament takes note of the issues that affect Northern Territory businesses every day and acts to deal with those issues to make the lives of Territorians and business owners easier than they have been in the past.
Thinking back through my seven-and-a-half-plus years as a Member of the Legislative Assembly and the member for Katherine, one resounding issue that comes to mind – not the major one, procurement – which is raised with me by business is red tape. The complaints I have heard over the last few years were about the increases in red tape that have occurred over the past decade and how difficult that has made business for the Northern Territory.
We can put that down to the legacy of 11 years of a Labor government, from 2001 to 2012. It is the type of thing we would see from the Labor Party. I guess you could describe it as being part of their DNA. The size of the public sector increased dramatically under the Labor Party. Not that I have a problem with that per se, but only when there is sufficient business and economic activity in the Northern Territory to support a larger public service. That is why, when I was minister for the portfolios for which I had responsibility, I strived to ensure the number of public service employees in my sectors reflected and represented the needs of industry.
At the same time, we were also cognisant of the fact that doing business in the Territory had become difficult. That is why we embarked on a red tape reduction strategy and committed to ensuring that the NT has a competitive regulatory and policy framework to go along with that.
This bill is about reducing the burden of government regulation and administration on businesses in the Northern Territory. I know that is something the business community in the Northern Territory will be very pleased to hear. As a government, we recognise the importance of and priority to reduce red tape to make life for businesses easier. Reducing unnecessary regulation and administration requirements helps to improve productivity by freeing up time to get on with business and save businesses money to improve competitiveness.
This government is in the process of – and I am very proud to say this because it has moved on since the last time I spoke about it – reducing 270 instances of red tape. The last time I mentioned a number of instances of red tape this government was targeting, the number was 200. That was only about six months ago. Now we have added an additional 70 instances of red tape and each one of those will have an impact on businesses somewhere in the Northern Territory to make their job a bit easier.
In July 2015 we released the NT government’s Red Tape Reduction Strategy. One part of the strategy was to reduce paperwork and the number of contacts that businesses, NGOs and individuals needed within government. Reducing the time spent on compliance will free up businesses and people to devote their time to more productive uses, such as growing their businesses and making the investments that will grow the Territory’s economy.
The strategy requires government agencies to, among other things, extend licences, permits, registrations and other approvals from annual terms to five years or longer, if appropriate; place transactions online; and prefill renewal forms. This has been occurring across government and this bill implements more of these time-saving reforms.
For example, this bill removes red tape by extending licence terms from one year to an option of one, three or five years for a range of businesses, including real estate agents, business agents, conveyancing agents, commercial and private agents and auctioneers. Commencement of these longer licence terms will be complemented by the go-live for these licences of the new Department of Business licensing and compliance system. This system is being rolled out in a stage process with stage one including real estate agents, business agents, agent’s representatives, conveyancing agents and commercial and private agents. All these licences can be applied for and renewed online with renewal forms prefilled and automatic notification of when renewal is due.
In a computer age it seems nonsensical not to have this type of strategy in place to help businesses because computers, despite the practical side of them, are supposed to make our lives a heck of a lot easier. This is a great package of reforms that will assist approximately 650 existing agent licensees and 600 agent representatives.
In addition to the new reforms in this bill, red tape reforms implemented by the government include, for example – this moves on to some broader areas where I hold some interest – non pastoral use of pastoral leases, which frees up businesses to innovate and diversify their businesses and new investment opportunities. It also includes the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Food business registration is now online with smart forms where 2300 businesses can now transact fully online. Environmental protection licences are now online and we have introduced a minimum three-year funding agreement for NGOs.
The government is working hard to provide regulatory certainty and efficiency for our key economic development sectors, including onshore petroleum development, agriculture, tourism, construction and development. In an area that is close to my heart, which is tourism, tour operators now have the option of one-, three- and five-year tour operator permits to conduct tours in NT-managed parks and reserves. They can also apply online for tour operator permits in all parks except Channel Point Coastal Reserve, the Garig Gunak Barlu National Park at Cobourg Peninsula, and the Larapinta Trail.
This is good for the Katherine region, having Nitmiluk National Park at its doorstep. It provides local tourism operators an opportunity to save some time and get their house in order for a longer period of time so they can do what they do best and conduct their business.
This also applies to checks on cosmetic standards for commercial passenger vehicles at MVR. They have been removed, enabling tourism operators greater choice and flexibility in where and what time their vehicle inspection takes place.
New initiatives that will reduce red tape will be introduced as part of the Northern Territory government’s review of the commercial passenger vehicle industry. These include amending the Commercial Passenger (Road) Transport Act to replace the current nine CPV licence categories with five, namely bus, taxi, minibus, private hire and charter. It will regulate that vehicles within each category will have similar market access and will pay the same annual licence fee. It will amend regulations to reflect that courtesy vehicles will no longer be required as CPVs; however, drivers will still be required to meet fit and proper requirements and hold a current CPV identification card. It will also develop a single body of regulations to simplify the current complex system.
There will be less paperwork for commercial activity permits. Applicants for permits to conduct commercial activities in NT-managed parks and reserves are no longer required to supply copies of certificates or licences related to food handling, liquor licences etcetera. The requirement to hold these certificates and licences remains but applicants are not required to supply copies. This makes it easier to achieve environmental approvals for major projects via bilateral agreements with the Commonwealth government for a one-stop shop for assessments.
The Tourism Advisory Council will be appointed by 30 April this year to investigate and make recommendations to remove unnecessary red tape affecting the tourism sector. This is another great step forward.
The Red Tape Reduction Strategy spells out this government’s commitment to achieving a regulatory environment that maximises productivity and incentives for innovation and investment, is underpinned by efficient administrative systems and processes, ensures regulation is in balance with the risk being managed, and minimises cost and impact on individuals, business and the NGO sector.
This bill reduces red tape for a broad range of business, including real estate agents, business licensors, conveyancing agents, commercial and private agents and auctioneers. This will help reduce costs in the property sector.
This bill also adds a significant red tape reform agenda, which is already in train. In other important areas, such as construction and development, survey approvals will be online, which allows private surveyors to apply for survey data, saving them time on data entry and duplication of information. Building approvals will be online, which will allow building certifiers to lodge building and occupancy permits electronically at any time, removing the need to attend a government office to lodge paperwork. There will be a one-stop shop for development applications. Processes have been improved to speed up assessment times and allow developers and the public to access information online about the development application process and current applications. That is good news.
I pick up on a comment made earlier by the member for Nelson about people with access to computers, and that people say that they often do not have time. Having these types of reforms in place where there is online access means people can, whenever they have a spare five minutes – after dinner, after the kids have gone to bed, when they are checking their e-mails in the evening – access this stuff and be effective in the way they have input into the processes of government, but in a far more expedient way, one that is more convenient for them. That is part of what this is all about.
It will also allow concurrent planning scheme and development assessments, which will speed up approval times by up to three months. That is fantastic news. Streamlining the unit titling subdivision process for new developments will reduce the need for multiple clearances from service authorities to a single clearance.
Reducing red tape is not just about removing regulatory requirements; it can also be about improving regulatory certainty for investors and developers. In October 2014 the government established the Construction and Development Advisory Council, the CDAC, to consult with the sector and develop recommendations to government about measures to reduce or remove red tape. The council investigated issues, consulted with stakeholders and reported to government on a range of recommendations which, in broad terms, include measures to improve things like certainty through long-term strategic planning, consistency in decision-making and customer-focused service delivery.
Government approved all recommendations in the report and is now implementing a range of measures to reduce red tape, including developing strategic land use plans and detailed area plans, which I will talk a little more on in the Katherine context in a moment; adopting land for use for Darwin’s inner and mid-suburbs, Alice Springs and Litchfield into the NT Planning Scheme; preparing uniform subdivision guidelines that provide additional certainty around the design, approval and handover of subdivision infrastructure; reviewing opportunities to streamline and improve our building certification system; and developing an approach to reducing duplication across builder registration, Contractor Accreditation Ltd, or CAL, and the Master Builders Fidelity Fund.
I will go back a short step and talk about the development of strategic land use plans. I will mention subdivision guidelines in the context of Katherine. It is fantastic that we have a new strategic land use plan for Katherine. It is something the Planning Commission, the department and the minister have worked very hard on. It was released a few years ago. It is an adaptable beast, which is a good thing. It is not set in concrete. In recent times I have approached the Planning Commission in my role as the Chair of the Katherine Flood Mitigation Advisory Committee and raised a few issues about some things that were not considered when the original document was put together, but which will be critically important for not only flood mitigation in Katherine, but for the future of our town.
Having this type of document, where changes are considered and adopted under appropriate circumstances, is fantastic. It means that things are organic, moving all the time and, if circumstances change, perhaps those things can change as well.
In talking about the uniform subdivision guidelines, it is very pleasing to see the largest private residential land subdivision in Katherine is well and truly under way.
I am a Facebook user. I was on my Facebook page the other day and up popped a memory. I do not know if people are familiar with that feature on Facebook, but it is a photo from 12 months or two years ago. Up popped a photo of me standing in front of a bulldozer with the developers and the real estate agent that was going to market the land being subdivided in Katherine. That was a year ago. It was still being bulldozed; the critical civil infrastructure was beginning and starting to go in. Because our government has been so proactive in this space not only in Katherine, but across the Territory …
Mr Chandler: It was not the Labor government.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: No, it was not the Labor government; I will pick up on that interjection in a second. It is great to see, 12 months on from that memory, houses now being built on that land. I was speaking to the real estate agent marketing them and he said more than 50% of those blocks have been sold. That is fantastic news. The developer, when we were working closely with him on getting the contract right, was a bit worried that these blocks would not sell quickly enough in order for him to comply with his contractual conditions with the government. He will be pleased to know that not only has he been able to easily surpass what is required under the contract, but that 50% of those blocks of land being sold is a great testament to the future of Katherine and will provide for the growth that Katherine needs. Katherine is at a cusp; we are about to have close to $500m spent at the Tindal air base, which will have some enormous positive impacts on our town.
This government has worked extremely hard over the past three-and-a-half years to repair the damage from the Labor government’s cattle ban, which was imposed in 2011. We have brought that industry back from the brink. That might sound a little off beam for the topic today, but it relates to Katherine and its important role and strategic position in the cattle industry. We have a booming cattle industry again, thanks to the efforts of this government. Land release in Katherine to grow the town and prepare it for the next growth spurt …
Mr Wood: At a good price too. It is cheaper than Darwin.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: It is cheaper than Darwin; thank you, member for Nelson. Yes, land in Katherine is cheaper than Darwin and that may be why some investors have had their eye on those blocks of land.
If we have uniform subdivision guidelines on reducing red tape around subdivisions, it will make the job easier and allow towns like Katherine to grow and become more prosperous in the future.
All these initiatives are about providing greater regulatory certainty, clarity, consistency and customer focus for the construction and development sector, a critical sector for growing and developing the Territory. Regulation that provides more certainty for developers and the building industry facilitates investment in the Territory and benefits the whole community.
The bill contributes to a balanced regulatory framework to ensure our economy is and remains productive and competitive.
According to the Deloitte 2015 survey, entitled Blueprint for Optimum Growth, regulatory compliance was identified as one of the top three inhibitors of growth by the 100 NT businesses surveyed. The NT is dominated by small businesses, which rarely have staff or time to deal with regulatory compliance. That is why one of the priorities of this government is the reduction of unnecessary regulatory costs for the Territory economy.
The objective of the government’s Red Tape Reduction Strategy is to achieve a regulatory environment and culture within government with the following goals: maximising productivity and incentives for innovation and investment; efficient use of administrative resources; regulation proportionate to the risk being managed; and a customer-focused approach which minimises cost and impact on individuals, businesses and the NGO sector. This bill meets these goals by extending a range of licences, permits and registrations from annual renewals to the one-, three- or five-year licence term option. For example, an extension of a bore construction permit from one year to two years makes life a little easier for companies engaged in that type of work.
Of the 270 red tape reforms that have been implemented or are under way, there are a few others that I have a strong interest in, given that they fell within my responsibility as the minister for Primary Industry and Land Resource Management, such as the introduction of the non-pastoral land use permits; the significantly reduced approval time for land clearing applications from six months to two to three months, which is fantastic; the introduction of a new 10-year enterprise permit for crocodile farms; and the implementation of the new 1080 wild dog management program, which streamlines regulations and reduces administrative burden, ensuring pastoralists have the powers they need to get on with the successful management of their properties. This includes replacing the annual permit with five-year baiting permits; simplified training and accreditation processes, including more flexible onsite trading options for those laying baits; and transport and collection of concentrate being made more flexible, allowing delivery to freight companies, which will give pastoralists more flexibility to coordinate targeted baiting programs with their neighbours.
I remember the discussion I had with the executive officer of the Cattlemen’s Association about the 1080 baiting program when I was the minister. That was in mid- to late 2014. Going back even further, there was some work done by the government to make the system better. There was a big change of the system of 1080 baiting. It went from being the responsibility of Parks and Wildlife to being the responsibility of individual property owners, and it was heavily regulated.
The industry was involved in that transitional process, but we found that the regulatory environment introduced at the time, although all stakeholders were involved, still needed to be refined. There were some unintended consequences flowing from the changes and the regulatory environment that was put in place. The government acted, and I began a process of consultation with the industry in 2014 to look at what needed to be fixed.
I just read out a couple of things about the changes to the 1080 program. That was not an exhaustive list; other changes were made, but each of those changes reflects an issue that was raised with the government by the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association, and we acted. We looked at them and said, ‘Yes, you are right. We can fix this. Let’s work together with industry to fix this.’ This is a great example of government working with industry to iron out some problems and it is why we now have this new system in place which makes it 100 times easier for pastoralists to deal with 1080.
Some of these regulatory changes put more responsibility on those being regulated. In my mind that is not a bad thing. We do not need to overregulate or regulate unnecessarily. If we have sensible people working in a sensible industry, with clear goals in mind and an idea about what they are doing, they should be given – certainly not carte blanche or free range – a regulatory environment that is sensible, does not hinder what they want to do and helps them achieve their goals.
Wild dogs are a huge problem for our pastoralists. They take millions of dollars out of the economy every year. The government moved to help the pastoral and cattle sectors in the Northern Territory to regulate this process to make it easier for them to reduce the impact on the economy. It is about the government listening to the industries with which we have dealings every day.
Therein lies the difference between this government and Labor. The Labor government talked with industry, I will concede that, but then ignored what it had to say in so many areas. Labor imposed ridiculous regulatory environments, things that made it bloody hard to do business in the Northern Territory.
When we came to government, the first people through our doors were those complaining about the red tape Labor had imposed. I hope we do not have to return to a Labor government any time soon in the Northern Territory because all the good work the Country Liberal government has done over the past three years will be undone. As I said, it is in the Labor Party’s DNA to impose heavy regulatory environments and fill the public service. With all due respect to the public servants, some of them then try to justify having a job by finding new regulations and ways to impose them on businesses.
That had to stop. We want can-do people. We want people in our public sector who are not there just to be police officers; we want them to help industry across the Northern Territory. Through the executive arm of government, Cabinet and then parliament passing laws, government sets the regulatory environment and passes on the culture through our chief executive officers to say, ‘We want business to thrive in the Northern Territory and for the public sector to help and play a big role in that’.
We have before us a bill that is making some of those changes, which will allow our public sector to move on and help our industries across the Northern Territory. By achieving these red tape reductions we will make a difference every day to some small businesses. That is what this is all about. We are a government that cares; we listen and act.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I shall not be on my feet long as I am aware the House has business to do. It enlivens me listening in this debate to some of the issues the Northern Territory faces going forward. It has been clearly articulated by members in this House, notably the member for Katherine, the Minister for Sport and Recreation and the Minister for Education, about what this bill attends to. There is an underlying philosophy we also need to consider – touched on by the Minister for Education – in regard to what it means to be a government that tries to enliven and free up the economy so it can continue doing what it should be doing: employing people.
Gone are the days when corporations were these rapacious organs that were built over time, trying to slash and burn their way through the public environment with only one view in mind: fattening their own bank accounts. Corporations today are far more socially aware mechanisms that step forward very carefully, being mindful of the impact they have on the community.
Corporations, to a large degree, have taken up self-regulation as a matter of philosophical construct rather than the response to a burden being imposed by a government. Having made that observation, it then lands on the feet of government to take the pressure off those corporations and allow them – give them entitlement, if you like – an earned autonomy so long as they continue to demonstrate that autonomy going forward. I would prefer to see company boards setting their own agenda for responsibility than imposing them from external sources as we tend to do in government.
Having made that observation, I pick up on the nature of this, freeing up, liberalising – hence our party’s name and our belief system, a Country Liberal government, which believes in freeing up people so they can be the very best they can be. That includes corporations and other organisations of that type.
The time has come, with an election around the corner – it seems there will be a federal election before we go to the polls in the Northern Territory in August, which means for the next four months we will be, essentially, in election mode, longer than any other jurisdiction in the country. As a consequence, people will be thinking much more carefully about investing. A four-month election period means people will take a wait-and-see approach towards investment.
It is important now to send certain signals. The passage of this bill today – I presume it will pass – will send an important signal to the community that the Country Liberal government is about taking the foot off the neck of businesses, other organisations and individuals, giving them the autonomy they need to step forward in a responsible fashion. The Leader of the Opposition says the same thing. He says he supports this legislation and believes government should do exactly the same thing. The problem is I do not see that philosophy being reflected in the opposition’s important announcements and comments in relation to other issues which affect investment in the Northern Territory right now. Labor’s position, therefore, is logically inconsistent with what I have heard today, and the Education minister touched on that.
Unconventional gas is an area where the opposition has sent mixed messages and has stone dead killed any form of investment in the next four months in the Territory. The Opposition Leader was on television last night, saying the government had made no plans going forward for the diversification of the economy. That is arrant nonsense and rot. We have seen results in the cattle industry and the tourism industry, and we would like to see results in the unconventional gas industry, but the political opportunists opposite us send inconsistent messages, to say the least, into the community.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of Student Representative Council members from Stuart Park Primary School, accompanied by Katie Streader. Welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr ELFERINK: These inconsistent messages mean that this jurisdiction is on the verge of becoming atrophied, at least in the development of unconventional gas, for the next four months, and then for a moratorium period, which is of an uncertain time frame, going forward. Businesses and companies do not remain stationary while they wait for governments to do things. If governments do not send clear and unambiguous signals into that environment in the first instance, it automatically follows that they will not wait; they will go somewhere else and that investment money will be lost.
A classic example of how oppositions and governments have worked together in history in this jurisdiction is the Ichthys development. I will let a little trade secret out; when we were in opposition the then Leader of the Opposition, Terry Mills, made some comments about the Ichthys development, which sent a ripple of uncertainty into the environment. The matter was discussed – I was only a staffer at that stage, in between being the member for Macdonnell and the member for Port Darwin – behind the scenes. Terry, to his credit, changed his position so he fulsomely supported the Ichthys project.
I remember passing the legislation; I was back in the House at that stage, in opposition. The government came in with a bill, offering specific performance to INPEX so it could build on Blaydin Point. It would have been an easy case to run that we do not build in the harbour. I did not want to build in the harbour and I do not think ConocoPhillips should have gone into the harbour, but there is a threshold where you have to make a decision. You either support something with the difficulties attached to it, or you do not.
Opposition, in the case of Ichthys project and the development at Blaydin Point, not only offered its support in general, but also offered its support for specific performance, which is an equitable principle in contract law and was quite particular in relation to where the INPEX plant would be built. The message to INPEX, particularly with the passage of that bill, was that 25 members of this House voted for the same thing. It enabled the government of the day to have the comfort to step forward and see development of the gas fields in the Northern Territory.
Wind the clock a little further back and see that INPEX, as an organisation, came to the Territory because it was not getting those signals from Western Australia. The Western Australian government was hardly enthusiastic about it. There was also noise from the opposition at that point because where the pipeline would have come across the Western Australian coast there was a whale breeding ground and there would have been a number of other challenges in relation to native title.
The government of the day – and congratulations to them, especially Clare Martin and Paul Henderson – got some advice from Paul Tyrrell. It was a long shot, but they went after it. After an original positional change by the then CLP opposition, it then supported the government in pursuing this and the passage of the legislation. As a consequence, a $32bn project was realised for Darwin.
Compare and contrast that with what is happening now. We are, as members of parliament, in a position of community leadership. There is little doubt, for anyone who has taken the time to read things like the Hawke report or get briefings from the various departments, that the process of developing unconventional gas in the Northern Territory is a completely different kettle of fish to other jurisdictions. There is little to suggest, if anything at all, that the development of unconventional gas in the Northern Territory is anything but safe and sound.
The regulatory environment which the Northern Territory government has created is firmer than the regulatory environment the former Labor government developed around the further expansion of unconventional gas. I say further expansion because we have been using unconventional gas in the Northern Territory for decades, yet the political opportunity is more important than the economic opportunities to the members opposite. They say they do not like red tape.
But what is a moratorium if it is not one of the greatest instruments of red tape? How long will this moratorium last? It depends who you talk to. If you want to believe the member for Johnston, I think he said two years. If you believe the Leader of the Opposition – did he say five years? I could stand corrected, but someone dropped that figure. Then the former Treasurer, Syd Stirling, who is now the head of the Labor Party in the Northern Territory, said, ‘For an indeterminate period of time’.
Picture yourself as a gas company wanting to develop unconventional gas somewhere in the world, perhaps in Australia because it does not present too much sovereign risk. You knock on various doors – South Australia, Queensland, New South Wales, Northern Territory and Western Australia – and the answer you get from the Northern Territory is, ‘We might think about letting unconventional gas be developed in the Northern Territory possibly, sort of, maybe for an indeterminate period of time. Will you invest?’ The answer is a clear and unambiguous no, yet the Leader of the Opposition maintains his positon that we must have a moratorium.
The assistance afforded to the Labor government in years gone by, by the Country Liberals in opposition, has not been replicated and it will be to the expense of the Northern Territory. The regulatory environment the Labor Party put together enabled unconventional gas to be sourced and explored in places like Katherine, Darwin, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs. The current Country Liberal government has made it abundantly clear that those places will not be allowed to be developed because of public concern. In my opinion it is unfounded, but nevertheless, it is public concern.
We understand that people are apprehensive about this and, given the amount of noise surrounding this issue, I can understand why. The problem is that the noise is not supported by the science. Rather than taking a responsible position for the future development of the Northern Territory the Leader of the Opposition has chosen to take an irresponsible position.
One of the other ways the Northern Territory government has sought to broaden the footprint of the development of the Northern Territory economy is by issuing water licences in a more assertive fashion than was historically done by the Labor government. As a consequence, a number of water licences – I believe 40 or so – have been issued. Once again a political opportunity has been seen by the members opposite. The people who had water licences issued, if they have not started to develop their projects surrounding their receipt of a water licence they will now not be able to. If there is a change of government their water licence will be reviewed and possibly taken away from them.
There are other people or organisations that have gone down the path of developing on the back of the water licence that has been issued to them. They will not expand, and it is not inconceivable that they will step away from their investments. What will happen with that investment money? It will not sit in a bank account waiting for the government to get its stuff together; it will go elsewhere. The risk we are demonstrating as a jurisdiction means we are becoming less viable with every passing day because we, as a jurisdiction, are not able to demonstrate certainty for investment into the Territory.
Those noises are not coming from the Northern Territory government, but from the Labor opposition and several Independents who see the political opportunity. I find it incomprehensible that the Leader of the Opposition would, in sittings past, complain about the empty shops he sees in Darwin and Alice Springs then immediately garrotte the opportunity to see the economy develop further so those shops might fill again. He has placed, through his irresponsible conduct, a boot on the throat of investment in the Northern Territory. And he has not done it for a short period; he has done it for an indeterminate period going forward. This is a direct and real threat to the economic diversification of the Northern Territory, something he has argued for over the last few years, which this government has been assiduously attending to for the last three years. Yet every time this government attempts to move down that path the Labor opposition says, ‘No, we will review it; we will place a moratorium on it.’
They then complain that investment is not coming to the Territory. They must start thinking as an alternative government not an opposition. To oppose is, by definition, at least in the context of this place, a destructive and negative thing to do.
This opposition will claim that at the next election it will form the next Territory government, yet every utterance from those members is to hamstring themselves as the alternative government. It should not be about them, nor for that matter should it be about us. Surely it should be about the people who are trying to make their way in life in our community, and it must be about the people who look to government to create an environment where they can invest and make the best possible decisions for themselves.
If the Leader of the Opposition continues to maintain this notion that you can undermine government for a political opportunity, he does it at the expense of jobs.
I hear spending announcement after spending announcement from the members opposite, and no indication as to how they will pay for it. How often do I come into this House and hear members of the opposition say government should do this and government should build that? Then you start to hear some of the promises going forward. Is it $1bn of housing in remote areas, at $100m a year over the next 10 years? Paid for with what?
There will not be the royalties you will need to pay for those types of things. There will not be the income from other sources, and it is clear that the GST will not be a great source of income going forward. That opportunity has now passed us by. It passed us by with the Labor government, which was so awash with GST income that it was able to expand the public service from 14 000 to 20 000 in the time it was in government. From 1978 the public service of the Northern Territory was about 13 000 to 14 000, going through to 2001, when it remained at 14 000. Between 2001 and 2012, under the tutelage of the Labor government, the public service expanded by 6000 to 20 000, where it stands today.
Of course we, on this side of the House, are the villains of the piece, but not because we cut the public service; we merely have not expanded it. The Territory should grow around it. But how will we continue to pay for those public servants? The GST revenue will not necessarily expand. The relativities will change in a very nasty way now that Western Australia is back on the nipple of the Commonwealth Grants Commission, after the commodities’ prices tanked. The pool is not getting much bigger, and the ask from Western Australia is getting substantially larger.
The net consequence of that is we have an opposition that has no clear plan beyond the next election. It may succeed in its intents and achieve government. Then it has the problem of keeping all those promises to wind back the economy, the development and the water licences, or review them; turn off the gas; build lots of houses; expand the public service; and give the unions what they want. All of that will happen, and there is no clear picture as to how it will be achieved.
There is only one way to achieve it. If you do not cut it back, you have to stick it on the credit card. All the pain we, as a government, have had to inflict in the last couple of years will be undone in a couple of weeks. We will return to a situation where the projected debt will be $5.5bn or worse and our credit rating will drop from AA1 down to probably a ZZZ in that environment. That is all right. They will have said, ‘We won government’, if they win, and they will make it up as they go along. You cannot do it that way.
There is no clear vision from the members opposite and the recipe they are writing for the cookbook of their form of governance is one of disaster. I call upon the Leader of the Opposition to step away from his comments in relation to the moratorium on unconventional gas, and allow the development of the Northern Territory to go ahead in an environmentally sound fashion, with all the checks and balances in place, so we can continue being players rather than mendicants in this Federation we call Australia.
Debate suspended.
The Assembly suspended.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr STYLES (Business): Madam Speaker, I thank all members of the House who contributed to this debate. It is a very interesting debate; it is diversified and has many angles and tangents that go off the central theme of reducing red tape.
The Giles government is about diversifying our economy. I listened carefully to words uttered by the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Fannie Bay, saying we do not have a plan. Sadly, he obviously does not read very much or get his staff to read what the CLP Giles government is doing.
I will enlighten a few people in this House and those watching and listening in relation to how we are cutting red tape. One of the things industry is concerned about is time delays and the cost of red tape. Many people say it is reducing the cost of doing business, but there are also opportunity costs, which includes what could or could not happen with that money when it is tied up in banks or allocated elsewhere that cannot be used for other purposes. Because of red tape, sometimes the banks withdraw their support because of the length of time involved. It seriously affects business. Business is about creating an economy which creates the jobs that Territorians need.
Let us look at some of the things we have done to try to reduce red tape. GST, stamp duty and royalties are all down. We are asking people to become more efficient and we have looked at governments becoming more efficient. We have also asked private enterprise to become more efficient. The Department of Business runs programs to help businesses understand their environment better. We run courses on how they might improve tendering, business practices and governance. This is all about reducing red tape and reducing the level of red tape impost, both financially and in opportunities of whatever they could have done with that investment.
We are trying to ensure that investors who come to the Northern Territory can attend one-stop shops and do not have to go through as much red tape. We got rid of over 200 instances of red tape, with more coming – 70 this year. The one-stop shop at the Northern Australia Development Office is one avenue where we can demonstrate very clearly that we are about reducing the impost on business.
Some of the international investor community and the decision-makers we hosted at the Red Carpet Investor Forum, which finishes today, looked at various opportunities in agribusiness, forestry, horticulture, aquaculture, beef production, food production, protein production for feeding fish and hay production for feeding cattle in feedlots. There is so much happening.
All of them talked about the cost of doing business and time delays in getting businesses approved. In the last three-and-a-half years we have had a major shift in the reduction of the cost and time of doing business.
The former Labor government, the red tape they have brought in and want to bring in relation to moratoriums – I am led to believe the opposition announced 12 inquiries. When you have an inquiry everything stops. The problem is it would appear Labor does not care about business, but wants to stop things from occurring.
This is where the Leader of the Opposition clearly demonstrates he does not understand how business works. As articulated by the member for Port Darwin earlier in this debate, businesses do not have a one-shot-in-the-locker approach. They do not have the money sitting in the bank, waiting for government to make decisions about what we will do. This government, the Giles government, has a very clear plan to diversify our economy. The other side has 12 inquiries and a moratorium on existing industry in the Northern Territory. Labor will have a moratorium on something that has been happening here for nearly 50 years, without any incidents, I might add.
The track record under the previous regulations was exemplary. We do not have a problem in the Northern Territory. There have not been any problems with shale gas fracking in South Australia or Queensland, which is why the South Australian and Queensland governments are saying, ‘We are very happy to take the investment from these overseas and Australian investors in the gas industry’. I know, from talking to people from the major companies in Perth, they are currently being courted by Queensland and South Australia.
The gas people who have billions of dollars to invest and thousands of jobs, as per Deloitte’s economic advice – there are 6300 extra jobs in the upcoming and ongoing fracking of shale gas in the Territory. The problem is that because of the wrecking ball approach of the Leader of the Opposition, these companies are now saying they are a bit shy about putting up their billions of dollars because they are not sure if anyone will do anything about protecting their interests and their shareholders’ interests.
When the Leader of the Opposition made his statement in February – one night he decided there would be a moratorium on fracking shale gas in the Northern Territory. The next day a company I spoke to in Perth pulled the cash it was going to invest – hundreds of millions of dollars from one company – out of the Northern Territory. They informed me they will invest it somewhere else. That saddens me because this is about the future of Territorians.
We have said continuously, since the Chief Minister announced it, we will get rid of red tape and make sure we develop the onshore gas industry further in an environmentally responsible way and take all the recommendations of the Hawke report. The Chief Minister mentioned just a few minutes ago in Question Time what we would do with the second Hawke report. We said, ‘You say it is okay, but now we want you to tell us how we can make it even better’. How do we assure people in the Northern Territory, Australians, or anyone in the world who wants to look at best practice – they only have to come to the Northern Territory to see our best practice.
I have heard about more red tape and inquiries, and I have heard media people in Darwin say they are sick of getting reports. Every report says if you regulate the industry shale gas is safe. I am not talking about coal seam gas or short drilling. This is long drilling anywhere between 4000 ft or 5000 ft down to 14 000 ft.
The other thing I ask Territorians to understand is that Territory shale gas is unique. It is trapped between two impervious layers of rock, one below where the shale gas is in the rock that contains the gas. You have to frack the rock so it releases the gas. The other layer of impervious rock is above it. It is like having a self-contained layer of shale gas, and there is a lot in Central Australia that we know about. There is an opportunity, according to Hawke, who had his report peer assessed.
The first Hawke report was about reducing red tape in relation to the oil and gas industry. We are about making sure you do an environmental impact statement for a range of wells. He looked at a range of things, and he took the time to look across the industry and review all the previous reports. He says that in Hawke report one. In the recommendations in his report, I think it is Recommendation 6, he says that this report should be peer assessed by people from around the world. This is not the Giles government saying it should be peer assessed; it is Dr Hawke saying that because of the work he had done – he had peer assessed everything else – his report should be peer assessed by some of the best people in the world.
In September 2015 in Sydney, chief scientists, the environmental protection authorities and a range of people from nine countries around the world got together, pulled the Hawke report to bits and examined it. At the end of it their report stated that you can frack in the Northern Territory with ease and safety, provided you have a regulatory environment and people follow it, and that there is no justification for any moratorium on fracking.
It is not just Dr Hawke saying that; these are the people sent by governments and agencies around the world to look at the Hawke report at the request of the people peer assessing the report.
I struggle when the Opposition Leader says he wants to see the science. The science is there; he just needs to read it. I will send him a copy of the reports and some of the links, where he can see they have been peer assessed. I was on radio one Friday and I heard that the member for Nightcliff had said, ‘We want to see the science’. Sadly, they do not know the science exists. It seems to me that so many things they are saying are just because they have failed to research it. Simply Google some of this stuff and you will see more information than you know what to do with.
I heard the member for Karama talk about something happening in Wyoming. There are reports that that water was of poor quality before, let alone after. There is debate on the condition of the water and there are reports stating the case before and after. I am not interested in what happened in Wyoming because we have a different process here.
The other thing I heard someone mention was that people can come in and drill on your property. I reiterate that we have some red tape – and I agree with the member for Nelson when he said we need to have some red tape – regarding protecting the environment. On this side of the House, after we introduce the regulations to the parliament, we will have world’s best practice. The red tape we have in place is about protecting our environment and making sure people do the right thing and drill according to world’s best practice.
There have been no accidents in the Northern Territory in nearly 50 years. It is interesting that they say they want to see the science. The science is there and they do not want to read it.
We have recently seen a turnaround. The Leader of the Opposition said Labor supports INPEX. INPEX has a great interest in the Beetaloo Basin now. It is now drilling for gas. It needs gas so it can have a backup to not only trains one and two, which are approaching completion at the INPEX site, but three onshore gas processing trains.
Shell’s Prelude is one of the first floating natural gas plants in the world and we are servicing that from Darwin. We can become the epicentre of the gas industry in the top part of Australia.
So that listeners and people watching this are aware, the northern part of Australia which is subject to the White Paper on Developing Northern Australia is about 40% of the Australian land mass. We get 60% of the rainfall here but, more importantly, we have 90% of Australia’s known gas reserves.
The Leader of the Opposition wants to shut down the gas industry and he talks about things not being as good as they were. They are not; we are coming off the back of the mining boom. We are looking at projects to replace that and diversify our industry through the gas industry, where there are 6300 new jobs and billions of dollars of investment.
We are looking at the forestry industry. TFS, or Tropical Forestry Services, has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in Katherine. All that is at risk at the moment because of the red tape Labor wants to put in place. Labor wants to stop everything …
Mr Elferink: And review the water licences that have been issued.
Mr STYLES: … and review the water licences that have been issued. What message does that send to people? I will take it down to a basic level. Someone comes in and says to the government, ‘I would like a driver’s licence, please’. ‘Great, okay, we will give you a driver’s licence; here it is.’ Then they buy a nice car. Then 12 months later the government comes along and says, ‘We will review your driver’s licence and may take it off of you. What will you do with your car? Put it in the garage or sell it and lose money.
It is not much different to being in government and saying, ‘Here is an exploration licence and application for 96% of the Northern Territory’. That included towns. People want to drill in the towns. If you live in the middle of Adelaide River and you have a shop on the main street and someone comes along with a drilling rig to drill, you cannot do that under what we plan.
We will not let people drill in town sites. We have taken them out. We will have shifted the water licences under the Water Act once we get the legislation through. We will have the red tape the member for Nelson was talking about when he was saying we like to see some red tape to protect the environment. You cannot drill in culturally sensitive areas or areas of high economic significance, be it agricultural or horticultural. You cannot drill in the middle of someone’s mango plantation nor can you go to Humpty Doo Barramundi and drill in the middle of the production area there.
We have strengthened it again by saying you have to get the permission from the land owner. If someone wants to drill on your property or wherever you have an interest, they have to say, ‘Excuse me, but we want to drill for gas on your property’. If you say no that is the end of the story. If you cannot get the permission of the land owner then you do not get to first base. Do not even fill out the paperwork. Talk to those people and find out what is going on.
It is important for the opposition to look at what is being proposed, what is already there, what we have done and what is on our record. I ask people who are listening or watching today’s live streaming, is this safe? Do we need more red tape to put extra cost on business? Do we need to put that sort of red tape in place to drive business out of the Northern Territory?
I do not understand why the Leader of the Opposition cannot understand basic business practices. He will drive investment out of the Northern Territory. He does not seem to understand why that will occur.
Mr Elferink: He has driven it out. It is already happening.
Mr STYLES: I pick up on the interjection from the member for Port Darwin. The Leader of the Opposition has driven investment out. People have cancelled drilling programs, investment and jobs. People have lost jobs already. There are already about 200 jobs that I know of. If you add that to the 6300 new jobs Deloitte conservatively estimates, 6500 jobs are already gone. Ancillary and associated jobs will also go. Someone from MS Contracting was on radio saying they would put on an extra 50 people – they were just about ready to give them a job – and there was a pile of people they had to put off from permanent jobs, so we are losing potential jobs already.
The Leader of the Opposition mentioned a population decline. We are increasing. That is a given and the figures are there. You do not have to ask us; get the real figures.
This is where you generate an economy. Again, the Leader of the Opposition indicates that he has no idea and is clueless about how to do that. You have to generate tax. Governments do not make money; they spend money. Private enterprise and business create the economy. On this side of the House we are ensuring we can facilitate business and that there is not a huge impost on investors and their shareholders. It does not matter if it is local people investing or national or international investors coming to the Territory. We need to send a clear message that we are open for business. You can come to the Territory and get your business going, but you want to ensure you get the environment right because if you cannot comply with that red tape – we are happy to keep that red tape because that is our kids’ future and our grandkids’ future. We are supportive of anything that protects our environment, which is why you need reviews. Obviously we created a time delay and some red tape, but you have to get that right.
The member for Nelson mentioned a paperless society and a paperless government. He said, ‘They just make us print this out. They send it to us, and then you download it and print it.’ That is the case, but at least now you do not have to get into your car and spend the time driving to the Motor Vehicle Registry or the Territory Business Centre. You can sit at home and print one piece of paper, compared to spending your time. Time is valuable to some people, whether they want to sit and read a book or be at work or running a business, building the Northern Territory and creating jobs.
I hear what you say, member for Nelson, but the carbon footprint is reduced dramatically by downloading a document and printing it at home. I will get a few pieces of paper from home and donate them to you so you do not have to worry about getting paper.
In regard to consumer protection, I agree with the member for Nelson. I think it is important we do that for the environment and reduce time. You spoke about apps. In getting rid of red tape this government has made some grants to the Council on the Ageing, which runs programs for older people. The Neighbourhood Activity Centres, an initiative of this government, are about a total community engagement package at Sanderson Middle School. I am very proud of the people there who coordinate that, that is, principal Liz Veel and director Paul Wyatt, as well as Robin Lawrence, who is the chair of the council. They do a fantastic job.
The feedback I receive when doorknocking is that people are starting to understand what is going on. It is also about seniors being able to get out and do what the member for Nelson was talking about. They can learn how to do things online and how to use their phones. I was thinking of going there myself and getting a 10-year-old to teach me how to use an iPhone. I can ring and talk to people, but there are so many other things you can do that I am not familiar with. There is something for everyone.
I will move on to something the member for Katherine raised. He talked about diversifying the economy, which the Leader of the Opposition does not seem to understand. Look at RAAF Base Tindal. In Katherine about $500m will be spent on upgrading the air bases and facilities to take the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter there.
What else is going on in Katherine to get rid of red tape? We on this side of the Chamber, in government, are about making sure we reduce red tape, but the Leader of the Opposition wants to put red tape in place and have a moratorium or a review on water; I am sure it is the same as a moratorium on jobs.
My understanding is that Tropical Forestry Services grows sandalwood not only for oils and pharmaceuticals, but for the timber, which is highly revered in Asia. It is stronger than ironwood. I was there a couple of weeks ago. I did not realise sandalwood is harder than ironwood. When you try to chop it with an axe it is almost impossible. It is very tough on their machinery.
Tropical Forestry Services is currently the world’s largest producer, but it will be far greater. Once it increases productivity, it wants to build a distillery. There are tens of millions of dollars that will be spent in Katherine. Again, the Leader of the Opposition wants to put red tape in the way so TFS cannot expand.
As we have heard from other speakers on this side of the House, businesses do not sit around and wait for people to make decisions. They cannot wait for four months until the election. If the opposition is put into government, it will hold this review. How long will that last? No one knows. There were 74 water licences outstanding when Labor was in government, for 11 years, that were not approved. That took years and years. People cannot wait that long. Businesses will go somewhere else to invest.
As I said before, it looks as though that investment will go over the border to Queensland or South Australia, which are Labor states. Look at forestry, wood chipping and a range of other things; those states are courting the people who are looking to invest in the Northern Territory. They are actively trying to get our investors to invest in their states. We, on the other hand, are actively trying to convince them to stay in the Territory and invest here. But they have to make investment decisions and they do not want to wait. This is having a major impact on the decisions made by the people who run the investment companies that have the equity, the joint venture capital or the foreign direct investment for a range of areas, not only forestry but beef, horticulture and aquaculture.
If you cannot get an opposition to say it stands for business, then these people are likely to go elsewhere. Some people have said they will simply wait to see what happens. They are in a position to wait, but others are not.
It is imperative that we ask. I believe the member for Port Darwin and the Chief Minister have asked that the Leader of the Opposition has a careful look at his position on some of these issues. The 12 reviews he wants when he gets into government if he is fortunate to be the Chief Minister – God help us if that happens. It will shut the Territory down.
I talk to people whilst doorknocking and I run the idea past them that these jobs are likely to go interstate to South Australia, Queensland or anywhere else. People are appalled when they find out there are people who want to shift this stuff from the Northern Territory. It boils down to people putting red tape up and reviews in. I am horrified that will happen. My family lives here; we are not going anywhere and they will have to put up with a reduction in the size of the economy, which will lower our GST and stamp duties.
The Leader of the Opposition proposes to put all this red tape in, which will shrink our economy. When he talks about a jobs plan, I do not know how getting rid of nearly 7000 jobs before you are in government will help create 14 000 jobs. When you have people in business who do not have the confidence and see the Northern Territory as an area for sovereign risk, I do not see how you can say you have a jobs creation plan. This is about shutting the Territory down, not increasing the wealth generation abilities in the Northern Territory. That includes jobs for our kids.
There is so much we could talk about in relation to this moratorium on jobs and the red tape the Opposition Leader wants to put in place. I ask all members and the opposition to have a very good look at what their plan is and what the consequences and ramifications are. I am happy to talk to any of them on a one-to-one basis or get briefings from some of these companies on the impact. Sometimes there are unintended consequences from the Leader of the Opposition because he does not understand economics or job creation. Perhaps some of these people can talk some sense into him.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Consideration in Detail
Clauses 1 to 33, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 34:
Mr STYLES: Madam Speaker, I move an amendment to clause 34. This reads that at the end of clause 34, proposed regulation 8(b)(iii), we omit ‘each Director mentioned in subparagraph (i)’ and insert ‘the applicant’.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Mr STYLES (Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table a travel report from the member for Nhulunbuy dated 17 March 2016.
Public Accounts Committee Report – Public Private Partnership Arrangements for the Darwin Correctional Precinct – consideration adjourned.
Public Accounts Committee Report into Structural Separation of Power and Water Corporation – consideration adjourned.
Northern Territory’s Energy Future Committee Key Challenges and Opportunities Issues Paper – consideration adjourned.
Auditor-General for the Northern Territory’s August 2015 Report to the Legislative Assembly – consideration adjourned.
Auditor-General for the Northern Territory’s February 2016 Report to the Legislative Assembly – consideration adjourned.
Standing Orders Committee Report to the Assembly March 2016 – Motion to Adopt Recommendations – consideration adjourned.
Committee of Members’ Interests Report to the Assembly March 2016 – Motion to Adopt Recommendations – consideration adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received the following letter proposing discussion of the following definite matter of public importance:
The letter is signed by the member for Karama.
Is the proposed discussion supported? It is supported.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I thank the government and the opposition for supporting discussion of this matter of public importance.
It has been my experience in working in government and opposition that one of the finest things we can do in representing our communities is to listen, and one of the finest things we can do in our careers is to learn every day.
I remember when fracking first arose as a question. I was the Treasurer then. I went to a press conference and someone threw a question at me about fracking. I had been given a heads up by a staff member prior to the press conference that I would be asked a question on fracking by a reporter. They provided me with advice on the response.
The question was in relation to fracking potential in the Barkly. The response was quite geological regarding the depths of the gas fields. I think it was something like 300 m below the surface, quite a different geological setup to New South Wales and Queensland. I gave that response, trusting that the information I was given was right, that the knowledge I had been provided was accurate and without really knowing about fracking. It was a question thrown and I was given an answer to provide; I trusted that was correct.
I have been on a really steep learning curve. It started for me when the discussions across our community started. I was Leader of the Opposition and visiting remote communities, and traditional owners raised their concerns and issues about fracking with me. I listened to their concerns and held lengthy discussions with them about it. I wanted to read about it so I started to read but continued to be briefed by industry, which was looking at investing in expanding onshore exploration efforts in the Territory. The investment that the government espouses as being a vastly significant opportunity for the Territory in economic development is overstated, but that is my view after looking at this issue closely.
I continued to learn and read the feeds that were coming in from overseas regarding the research that has emerged from the United States about the areas that have experienced fracking since the 1990s.
Until recently, I was fairly ignorant of what was happening with coal seam gas elsewhere in Australia, particularly in Queensland. I know shale fracturing is different to coal seam gas. I have been trying to get across the technological aspects of fracking and the different types of fields. What struck me significantly is that what industry said is consistent: world’s best practice; it is safe; and there will be jobs. The job figures quoted are very high; 6300 is the figure being bandied around by the government today.
They will not force their way onto properties; they have no desire to do that. They will work with pastoralists and if someone does not want them on their land they will not go on their land. Being someone who fundamentally trusts people and trusts what they say, I have believed it. I have had deep and growing concerns about the environmental impacts that have emerged – water contamination, soil contamination, air pollution – and I want to know more. Things have emerged very recently.
The Stanford University study into the effects of fracking in Wyoming has proven the water has been contaminated – peer reviewed. Yet driving into work this morning I heard APPEA representatives saying there is no proof the water was contaminated. That is not true, because it has been proven.
As well as being a learning curve it is also an understanding that what people have said from the industry about the benefits may not be true. I am trusting, so I thought surely not. It was gobsmacking to listen to the people from different parts of the world talk about their own lived experience. In my experience, not until you meet someone who has experienced this firsthand do you generally get to the detail of understanding and knowledge of what happens. Not what is espoused or predicted, but what actually happens.
I had the opportunity of meeting a woman from Queensland, Helen Bender, a very brave woman, and a man from Wyoming in the United States, John Fenton, whom I think is a very honourable and decent man. I saw the photos of the Wyoming ranch – they call it a ranch and we call it a station – which had cattle and crops, and has been in the family for decades. They have worked it for that long, as honest, hard-working farmers do. The wells and soil are poisoned. The photos of the lesions on their bodies are not made up. The nose and ear bleeds from their children are not slight bleeds; they are pools of blood. The chronic debilitating headaches of their children are not made up.
What struck me was that both had the same experiences and symptoms from the contamination of the water, the bubbling where you can literally light the methane gas emerging into the air as pollution from the water wells on their property. The water and land can no longer be used to feed their livestock.
Both had eerily similar stories in relation to soil contamination and air pollution. The photographs from John Fenton from Wyoming were so confronting that I defy anyone who sees his presentation to not question the validity of what has been said by the companies. There was a moment during the slides when John Fenton said, ‘Look at these lovely sandstone rocks’. They were huge towering rocks and etched into them were rock carvings by native Americans from God knows how long ago. He said, ‘That’s the legacy they have left us. It is a beautiful legacy, but look at the legacy we’re leaving now.’ The land is contaminated, cannot be worked, cannot sustain livestock or be cropped. They have lost their livelihoods.
They were promised it was world’s best practice and that it was safe. They were told it does not pollute the water or the land and that they would receive some monetary benefit from it. They were promised thousands of jobs that did not eventuate. The low number of jobs that came with the wells – we are talking thousands of wells across the US – tended to be for teams of people travelling, the fly-in fly-out workers and the boom/bust cycle of bringing in a crew because they know how to do the work. There was no local training and it was not locally provided.
All the things we are currently being promised were promised in the United States in the 1990s. The same happened in Queensland a decade ago and they have not eventuated. In fact, the worst possible outcome has: poisoned water, contaminated land, and families and children with obvious health issues. The industry is saying there is no evidence or proof. Week after week, the proof is emerging from scientists. That is why I brought this matter of public importance forward.
What will our legacy be if we decide to proceed with the pursuit of an onshore gas industry that requires unconventional gas extraction, which is fracking? The message from John Fenton of Wyoming and Helen Bender of just outside Chinchilla in Queensland was the same. ‘Don’t wait until it is too late to stop it. The wolf is at your door now. Stand together, united as a community to stop fracking.’ It is a simple, clear call to the Territory community, and it makes so much sense. Once the water is poisoned and the land is contaminated and our children have chronic health issues, it is too late.
Helen Bender went to – the area is now called a basin but they used to have another name for it in Queensland. She went to a group of specialists looking at the basin. With the amount of water required for the fracking process, it is depleting aquifers. That is a big issue they have in the US. It essentially dewaters the aquifers so there is no water; the rivers and the land run dry. There is no water to sustain the life there. They are experiencing the same thing in Queensland. The wells are running dry.
Helen asked how long it would take, if the extraction of water was stopped, to replenish the aquifers. The scientists have not done any modelling on that; they do not know the answer. They just said to her, ‘A very long time’.
What is a very long time? Everyone has a different view of what a very long time is. My goodness, our kids think a very long time is a day. Is it 50 years? Is it 100 years? The point is no one knows; the modelling has not been done. Yet decisions, approvals and action to extract all that water has occurred without knowing how to replenish the aquifers, how long it takes or what that modelling is. How can a smart nation do that? It is extraordinary.
The government talks about the potential of this industry and the great economic wealth that will be derived through royalties, even though the lived experience in the US and Queensland is that the royalties did not eventuate, even though we know the price of oil and gas is so low it is not economically viable and the companies are not making the profits to reap the royalties. The industry, through the ACOLA report, indicated that the industry revenue and jobs predictions are based on the extraction of 200 trillion cubic feet of recoverable reserves. The ACOLA report from 2013 also states that this would equate to approximately 55 000 wells across the three major shoal gas basins identified in the Northern Territory.
Georgina, McArthur and Wiso are beautiful landscapes in the gulf country and through the Barkly into Arnhem Land. Do you want to ruin country that is so linked to the people of the land, the pastoralists and traditional owners, the very people who are fighting hard against this? It is not 100% because some people believe the stories they were told – the same stories they were told in the US and Queensland, that it is good, safe and clean, and there will be jobs and royalty money. None of that eventuated in the US or Queensland. In fact, the opposite happened: it was not clean or safe; they did not get the jobs; the water is poisoned; the land is ruined; and the children’s and families’ health has been affected.
Like me, many people are trusting. You believe the good story until you learn otherwise.
What is the headlong rush? The CLP has not managed its economy as well as it likes to pretend it has. I get it; there is a real problem because they do not have a major project to follow the major Ichthys project. That will not change with this headlong pursuit of fracking. I do not believe you will be in government post August, CLP. Therefore, the moratorium will come into place, thank god. Will the government of the Northern Territory ask Territorians for their say, which is a request for the referendum?
Someone in debate today might say the referendum will be held anyway because of the election result. ‘Are you for or against fracking? If you are for it you will vote CLP and if you are against it you will vote Labor.’ Nonsense! How can you know what Territorians will vote on? Someone could vote on a completely different issue, like health, education, roads or the cost of living. Can you stop treating people with such contempt? Unless you have directly asked them about that issue, you do not know the answer. I do not know the answer. I am not standing here because I know that X percentage of people is for or against fracking. I am standing here because of what I have seen, heard and read, and because of the deep and binding care I have for our country and our people.
Can we take the time in the Territory to be smarter and better than others, and work it out carefully? If it is not safe or clean, and poisons the water and contaminates the land, as is the daily lived experiences in the US and Queensland – if we see, learn and know that, then make some decisions with the eyes wide open rather than burying our heads in the sand, pretending that is not the case when it is.
Then there is the Hawke report. I want to thank Lex Silvester, the barrister. He spoke at the public forum last night about being a Territorian of 46 years, with his children and grandchildren born here and most of them calling the Territory home. He was a lawyer and a barrister, and amongst his capabilities he has expertise in testing expert evidence in civil litigation and inquiries.
His interest was in the report of the independent inquiry into hydraulic fracturing in the NT, a document which is relied on by the Giles government in support of its decision to begin granting leases for fracking. Essentially, he showed it was a biased report that was deeply flawed. We know Hawke had a direct conflict of interest, being part of of a company with direct links to the growth of this onshore gas industry.
Give Territorians a say; please support a referendum. CLP, you will probably lose anyway, but at least let the Labor government know what it is up for.
Mr TOLLNER (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, what an interesting thing. We now have the Erin Brockovich of the Northern Territory addressing this Chamber with her mad MPIs, trying to kill investment opportunity, industry and jobs. The first question you have to ask is why the member for Karama is leading this debate. This is the baby of the Leader of the Opposition. He is the one who wants the moratorium, is committed to wrecking this industry and is committed to making sure onshore gas jobs do not occur. Yet leading the debate is the member for Karama.
You have to ask, ‘Where are the guts of the member for Fannie Bay?’ The Opposition Leader is the bloke who says he will put a five-year moratorium on onshore gas. Where is the intestinal fortitude of this man to lead this MPI? We are left with the Erin Brockovich of the Northern Territory parliament to come in here and run this mad MPI. This is crazy stuff.
There are obvious reasons why the Northern Territory government is committed to supporting the development of an onshore gas industry here in the Northern Territory. For more than 40 years gas has been used to create electricity in the Northern Territory. It has come from onshore gas reserves that in the past have powered Darwin and still power Alice Springs and other regional areas. We have offshore gas nowadays, powering Darwin and its regions.
Offshore gas also comes to Darwin and a lot of it is liquefied and exported overseas. Two of the world’s largest LNG plants are based in Darwin, that is, the ConocoPhillips plant, which operates from the Bayu-Undan reserve, and INPEX, which is currently under construction and looks at the Ichthys field in northern Western Australia. The private sector is to build a $1bn pipeline from the Northern Territory to Queensland, which will join the national gas network. This will provide hundreds of jobs for people in Central Australia and the Barkly. It is a decision I believe is welcomed by the people of Tennant Creek and the Barkly region. The member for Barkly might be able to confirm that.
Excess gas will be piped through that pipeline and used in the national gas grid. It is estimated the Northern Territory has 200 years of gas reserves in small pockets in remote parts. As the member for Karama said, some estimate around 200 trillion cubic feet. To put that into context, the Ichthys gas field in northern Western Australia is somewhere around 14 trillion cubic feet. That has warranted the construction of a $30bn LNG facility in Darwin, which all parties have welcomed, but 200 trillion cubic feet of natural gas is almost unimaginable. It is in excess of 10 times what is in the Ichthys field.
We are being told by the opposition and by what some call the Independent member for Karama – I think she is still the Opposition Leader – that we cannot touch what we have in the Territory, but it is quite okay to extract gas from northern parts of Western Australia. All the royalties from the Ichthys gas field go to the Commonwealth government, and all the royalties from onshore gas go to the Territory government, but that does not seem to reckon in the minds of those opposite. They do not care; they are simply out to destroy jobs and income.
The Giles government has adopted the most stringent environmental standards to protect the NT in any future gas exploration. Tomorrow I will table the Petroleum Bill, which will see more of those Hawke recommendations debated in this parliament.
The gas industry has a very small footprint and will only be allowed in a few selected remote areas. As the Chief Minister pointed out in Question Time, when we came to government 96% of the Northern Territory was made available for exploration applications by the then Labor government for onshore gas. Since then we have heard protests around the Territory with people saying they do not want fracking in their back yards. The government has moved on that. Rather than putting exclusion zones around the towns, we have looked at the gas resources in the Territory and we would be putting exclusion zones around most parts of the Territory. Why do we not just have inclusion zones and nominate only the areas where we will let gas exploration occur?
Less than one-quarter of the Territory is now considered an inclusion zone. There will be no gas exploration near towns, in people’s back yards, in areas of high ecological and natural value or areas where there is lots of agriculture. It will only be limited to those areas that are considered inclusion zones where you can actively explore.
The vast majority of the Northern Territory is now excluded from gas exploration. What a difference now to under the previous government, where virtually the whole Northern Territory was available for application to explore.
Our skilled workers – as they finish off the INPEX project their skills should be immediately available to be used in the Northern Territory. But Labor, by its action of putting this moratorium in place, is sending those workers somewhere else. Make no mistake; they are destroying those jobs here in the Northern Territory. Our skilled workers are also being used in the maintenance of offshore LNG plants, being built by Shell, in Western Australian waters. Our plan is to expand onshore and offshore gas fields over the next 20 years, and expand our industrial base that uses massive amounts of gas reserves.
This in turn utilises the Port of Darwin services in the gas industry and respective support industry which, in turn, provides additional work for our skilled workers in the Defence support industries, marine industries and other related industries around the town. The Defence support marine industry is vital to the Northern Territory, and with the right infrastructure and policies it will be a major industry into the future, but we need to create the industry it requires now. The Country Liberal government is providing $100m to support that to assist in developing a major shiplift facility which will, in turn, support the local marine sector as well as the Defence marine maintenance industry for the Australian Navy and other international navies that need refuelling, restocking and maintenance.
The Northern Territory needs scale and momentum in its industries to provide long-term, sustainable growth. We have put safeguards in place to protect our environment while allowing sensible and controlled exploration and expansion of the three new industries. The Leader of the Opposition wants to bring a moratorium to onshore gas activity – which will kill jobs for Territorians into the future – until a known scientist has done research.
We have done an independent review, so has the US Environmental Protection Agency, the UK’s Royal Academy of Engineering, the Council of Canadian Academies, the Scottish government, the Australian Council of Learned Academies, the Western Australian Department of Health, and Australia’s Chief Scientist. I could go on and on.
Hydraulic fracturing research has been done all around the world and it has been demonstrated that it can be done safely and sustainably over the long term, providing the proper environmental and governance regulations are put in place. It is as simple as that.
We have now sat here for 30 minutes listening to the Erin Brockovich of the Northern Territory saying the daily-lived experience is that water is poisoned, land is ruined and children are suffering, but there is not one jot of evidence to demonstrate that anywhere in the world. The member for Karama has heaped scorn on the Northern Territory’s Department of Mines and Energy, suggesting it has somehow filtered the information and refuses to look at the studies that show there is poisoned water, the land is ruined and the children are suffering.
I put it to the member for Karama to start tabling some of these things. Demonstrate where the department of Mines has misled people. She is a great one for walking outside and saying this government does not value public servants, but she is the first one to call their advice into question and suggest they are not doing the right job, and that somehow they are politically contaminated and running a line that is contrary to good governance. Member for Karama, either put up or shut up.
Start tabling the myriad of reports from all over the world that demonstrate water is poisoned, the land is ruined and the children are suffering. I do not believe you have them; I do not believe any sensible person believes you have them. I do not believe that the United States Environmental Protection Authority, the UK’s Royal Academy of Engineering, the Council of Canadian Academies, the Australian Council of Learned Academies, the Scottish government or any of those institutions and organisations from around the world believe you have them, because you do not. You are coming in here with nothing more than a scare and nothing to back you up.
You talk about the US experience. The US experience has largely driven this government’s thinking. In the mid-2000s, huge efforts were made by wildcatters in the US, largely unregulated, but they had laws to comply with. But in a fury they tried to crack shale gas. They knew there was gas and oil there, but they could not find a way to extract it from the shale so many kilometres below the ground. Then it happened; we had the US shale oil boom. What was the consequence of that?
First, there was a major change in global geopolitics because, for the first time in a long time, the US became an exporter of energy. It was not required in places like the Middle East, protecting its energy security. It did not have to send troops all over the world to ensure the energy futures of Americans; they had cracked the problem in the US to the point where they are now self-sufficient in their energy needs.
Second, manufacturing industries closed down in Europe and other parts of the world and started moving to the US, primarily because that was where they could get cheap energy. The gas started to flow, jobs started to grow and all of a sudden the US economy rebounded.
It is interesting to see the President of the United States browbeating other countries about their greenhouse gas emissions. Most notably, he was here as part of the G20, lecturing Australians on how we have to work harder to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The US radically reduced its greenhouse gas emissions. You have to ask, how did the US change its greenhouse gas emissions almost overnight?
Mr Elferink: It drilled half a million fracking wells.
Mr TOLLNER: That is a good interjection from the member for Port Darwin. They drilled wells and fracked them. It was not that large-scale solar plants were built all over the US, or large-scale wind farms or other renewable sources of energy. It was because they cracked shale gas. They released the energy from deep below the surface of the US and started converting coal-fired power stations to gas-fired power stations. That is how the US started to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. You ask if we want a part of that in Australia. I have to say, hell yes.
First, we are not the first to do this so we have all the science, technology, history and deep learning we can take away from the US and not make mistakes where they did. We can make sure, straight up, that we have the best environmental regulatory framework in place before we even embark on this industry. We can be almost 100% certain that we are doing it safely in the Northern Territory.
Second, with such an enormous reserve of gas, of course we want to exploit it because it means jobs, opportunity and a future for our children in the Northern Territory. This is not a rough, dirty, filthy industry; this is a clean industry with high-tech jobs, opportunities and people with a good education.
Admittedly, the first of the gas we get will be used for energy production, but as more and more gas comes online, I expect we will see more happening in the area of advanced manufacturing. Almost 50% of gas that is produced in this world goes to things other than energy production. It produces almost all the things we see around us.
It is interesting to see the Lock the Gate Alliance mob carting around these little triangular plastic signs which are made of – you guessed it – gas. They are actually promoting the industry by their very action of waving those plastic placards around.
It make sense for the Northern Territory to pursue this industry with our eyes open, learn from the mistakes of the past, employ world’s best practice and make sure we have the best regulatory environment in place to ensure this can proceed.
Madam Speaker, I deplore the member for Karama for her cheapjack political stunt in putting this forward. I find it dismal that the Leader of the Opposition does not have the character to lead this charge. After all, he is the one who wants to destroy these jobs and this industry. At least he should have the backbone to explain it.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, the first thing I note is that no member of the opposition has risen to speak on this debate. Where are they? Have they realised the difficulty they have created for themselves in announcing a moratorium, whatever that is, in the House today?
Their silence should echo deafeningly in the ears of all the members of this House. They know they are stuck in a horrible political situation. I invite them to unstick the politics by returning to the reality of the conversation we are having.
I hear the member for Karama, and whilst her sentiments may border on romantic in how she expresses herself, I understand what she is saying. Many mistakes may have been made in the United States. I have done a bit of homework and tried to inform myself. There is so much opinion on this that sorting the opinion from the facts is an extraordinarily difficult thing to do.
Where mistakes have been made is largely based in the technology. We may all remember the film Gasland. I have not seen the film but have seen scenes. The fellow walks over to his tap and strikes a match. The pipe shudders and then the gas coming from the tap catches fire; you have the effect of burning water coming out of the tap. I had to do homework into that.
The American department of the environment looked at those claims, and it was methane coming out of the tap; it had nothing to do with the nearby fracking holes. It had everything to do with the fact that his water bore had tapped into a source of methane.
We have to be governed by the science as much as we can be, but sorting the science out of the stories and mythology is difficult. When I received the flyer from Mr Fenton of Wyoming, I walked into my kitchen at home, opened Google and did some homework on Mr Fenton.
What I noted from Mr Fenton’s experiences was that there were problems with water quality and pollution prior to the arrival of the industry. I cannot know from the little that I have read whether the industry contributed to that. But the description of his environment being pristine and the water quality being fine prior to the arrival of the gas industry is not accurate according to the American EPA.
I do not doubt that he is a passionate man. He is obviously travelling the world discussing this sort of thing and has clearly had some experiences, but the science is uncertain around it and there are other aspects to his claims which draw them into reasonable question.
I have listened very carefully and read as much as I possibly can. There have been mistakes, especially with the fracking fluids that have been used. There were a number of spills in the United States, in Pennsylvania, where there was surface water contamination, but not because of the fracking. It was because the fracking fluids were spilled at the surface level due to poor practices. The fracking fluids that were being used in the Pennsylvania region, where these issues came up, were spilled on the surface and then there was some groundwater leeching. The actual fracking was not the cause of any pollution.
It is clear that an industry of this nature should be very carefully monitored and regulated. As should any industry that leaves a substantial environmental footprint. We do it for open cut mines, underground mines and any number of sources, but that does not mean we should automatically shut the whole thing down or even impose a moratorium. I am satisfied with what I have seen proposed in the Northern Territory, and the circumstances of fracking here are different to other jurisdictions; it is primarily based on depth.
With the coal seam gas being drilled in Queensland, one of the seams was at surface level. That is not a practice we are advocating in the Northern Territory. I also understand the seams were not far below the water table and were measured in hundreds of feet. As we heard from the Chief Minister, our starting position in this jurisdiction is 2500 ft going to a depth of 9000 ft. There are many impermeable layers of rock.
I heard the comment by the member for Karama that there are 55 000 wells proposed. That might be the case, but a well does not need to be deeply intrusive, in the sense that the footprint it leaves behind is a small concrete plug you can grow a plant on top of. The shaft underneath is what you have to protect. The shaft casing – if it happens to go through a water table – is reinforced with steel, concrete, steel, concrete, and so on. It goes from a drill hole of four or five inches in diameter to an actual shaft casing of about 18 inches to 2 ft, which is a substantial difference and will survive many years without degradation. Once oil is drilled, the gas is extracted and the truck drives away or the equipment is pulled out of there. The small working area can be easily rehabilitated and the well can be plugged. All of these things are technical issues which can be achieved.
I am delighted we live in a world where it is possible within my lifetime, almost certainly within my daughters’ lifetimes, that we will find sources of energy which are so abundant that it will make the reliance on hydrocarbons seems antiquated and quaint. There is research being done right now in a number of countries.
The national fusion institute in California has now sustained a fusion reaction for about a femtosecond, and it delivered more energy out than what went in. The whole organisation of it, unfortunately, meant there was still more energy being used, but it is an important step in the right direction.
Various countries, including France developing the tokamak reactors, are now reporting longer and more sustainable fusion reactions. These are massive and expensive machines. Finally, when we get to the point where we can sustain such a reaction, the conversation we are having in this room will become redundant. Imagine a world where you can leave your air conditioner running all day because it will cost you 5c maximum because you are paying for the network and generation of the power. Your environmental footprint will be next to zero.
We cannot, as a community, simply stop growing while we wait for these technical advances to occur, as confident I am that even in my lifetime we will see them occur. By necessity, we leave a footprint on the environment as a species. We do so on a daily basis as we grow and expand our horizons. What should that environmental footprint look like as we continue to consume energy, which is expensive and has an effect on the environment in which we live? Should we continue to use coal or crude oil?
It is interesting to note that we are in a parliament which is lit by gas drawn, as I understand it, from fracked wells. The gas that was produced by Mereenie for all those years was pulled out of the rock in Central Australia and piped up here. It was designed and built to replace the diesel we were burning at the Stokes Hill power station that was around the corner from this building, and which I remember operating when I was a kid.
Our environmental and carbon footprints, as a result of using the gas we have drawn from the Mereenie field and now from the Eni fields at Blacktip, are about half what it would be if we were burning oil or coal. I am not aware that we have ever burnt coal in this jurisdiction and I do not believe I would be a great advocate if we did.
We cannot take the Malthusian world view where we simply say it is all bad, bad, bad. Even if we provide an abundance for ourselves it will be at the expense of our future. When Malthus described the suffering that humanity would undergo as a result of the increasing abundance of food supply, meaning that more of us would be living in the same poverty, it was probably correct but for one very important truth. The one very important truth Malthus could not have known about – because his comments were in the pre-industrial age – was that technology would change in such a way that the standards of living through the pursuit of technology, and better forms of energy, would lead to standards of living being increased throughout the world, and continuing to be increased even today.
I note that a recent UN report made the observation that for the first time in human history less than 10% of the world’s population is now living in abject poverty. That is a much better situation than almost 100% of the world’s population living in abject poverty 1000 years ago. It is certainly a much better situation than my childhood, when many more people lived in abject poverty.
Through the experience of expanding our industry and our world, we have seen China, in the space of a few decades, go through the exploitation of energy and resources at its fingertips, lifting more people out of poverty than any other period in human history.
A name that will probably be forgotten to human history is Deng Xiaoping. He should, in my opinion, be the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize because he created an environment where 300 million people, by using energy and the resources around them, were able to lift themselves out of poverty and create health and wellbeing hitherto unconceived in China.
It is well and good to point out examples of where things have gone backwards, but if you want to look at the …
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Stranger in the House.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I believe it is a technician from the Legislative Assembly.
Mr ELFERINK: We have to continue exploiting those resources around us until such time as our technology takes us in a new direction. If it is true that we will drill 55 000 wells then we will be dropping 10% on the wells that the United States has drilled across the US and North America – it also intrudes into Canada. If we are capable of producing 10% of the energy that was produced by the whole of the United States since its adoption of this technology, we would be fools of the most extreme order to ignore those possibilities. However, having made that observation, we have to be careful. By creating a regulatory environment and creating inclusion rather than exclusion zones, we are doing what is necessary to be careful.
If we are against the notion of an environmental footprint then we are against any form of mine. There are always environmental footprints. If we are against the notion that humanity should have any footprint on the environment at all, we should not have roads, schools, hospitals or houses, and we should live in yurts and eat yoghurt. But nobody is suggesting that.
To simply say, ‘No, let’s not do it. It is all wrong; we must resist this’, in the face of such potential abundance, and in light of the history of our species where the pursuit of abundance has created wealth and health beyond the wildest imaginations of the generations that have preceded us, would be a folly and would not be a wise way to step forward.
Let us not be ashamed to exploit the resources available. Let us be cautious and careful in that exploitation, but, nevertheless, step forward. It is the capacity to embrace those resources that has led to such enormous impacts on us as a species on the face of the planet. It will not be long before we leave the planet and start going to other places, as we are starting to see in the development of missions to nearby planets, such as Mars.
We have to embrace the notion that we can pursue our forward steps as a species safely. We can do it through the exploitation of resources and the development of technologies that have, as a general principle, made the quality of living across the world, Australia and the Northern Territory better. We would be mugs to step away from this because we were afraid. Yes, be careful, but let us not be afraid.
Mr KURRUPUWU (Arafura): Mr Deputy Speaker, when in government, Michael Gunner and the Labor Party allowed permits and applications for over 95% of the Northern Territory, including places of cultural significance. Our government has removed this from environmentally sensitive and culturally significant areas, as well as setting no-go areas for onshore gas exploration, areas deemed culturally sensitive, residential areas or areas of high environmental value.
Onshore gas development can only occur with the approval of traditional owners and land owners. The Country Liberals believe that traditional owners should have the right to decide if mining and explorations happen on their land. If they decide they do not want to allow companies to extract resources from their land then that is their right. The Country Liberals believe that when traditional owners want to negotiate with the company to allow them access to their land in return for the creation of local jobs and a royalty system, it is their right.
Unlike those opposite, we believe the best people to decide what happens on traditional lands are the traditional owners. The Country Liberals will continue to support traditional owners, whatever their decision may be. Thank you.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, with the issue of fracking it is not always easy for people to sort the truths from the untruths. In many cases it is a mixture. I have worked my way through many issues relating to this ever since the previous Minister for Mines and Energy discussed this matter in the very early days of this parliament. I remember saying to him, ‘You need to be on the front foot’. There are people who will have a different point of view and they will certainly promote that, as is their right in a democracy.
I have been trying to get a balanced viewpoint about fracking. There have been some changes in the government’s attitude towards fracking from the days when we first talked about it. At least we started on the right foot by having Dr Allan Hawke set up an important inquiry, which I found difficult to believe had not been read by the President of the Labor Party when he was introduced on ABC. It is no good saying this document is no good if you have not read it.
This document is an important start to the discussion, whether you are for or against. If you look at the back pages you will find that 263 people, communities, associations and businesses commented or put submissions into the Hawke inquiry, so you can least say that people in the Northern Territory were able to give their viewpoints about fracking.
From that inquiry a series of recommendations was made, but in following that up I ask people if they have read Hawke’s second report, the Review of the Northern Territory Environmental Assessment and Approval Processes. It is a really important document which you have to read to find out what is going on in this field. From that – I have had these on my table at my office – came the Onshore Oil and Gas Guiding Principles, and people were asked to comment. A number of factsheets were handed out about various impacts on water, agreements with pastoralists, and the environment. From that came the draft Petroleum (Environment) Regulations. I am not sure whether they are still out for comment. I have not read this document, but it is important, but Dr Tina Hunter has read it.
In March this year she reviewed the draft Petroleum (Environment) Regulations. I have tried to look at these issues as open-mindedly as possible. Dr Tina Hunter is the Associate Professor of Energy Law and the co-director at the Centre for Energy Law at the University of Aberdeen. She spoke to the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association conference on 17 and 18 March this year in Alice Springs. Her topic was the balance between petroleum resource development and pastoral industry sustainability. The question was, is the NT regulatory framework robust enough to accommodate coexistence?
Some of the concerns she had are the same concerns I have. I am not saying that fracking does not have issues. We are working through a process which I hope will pick up some of the issues, concerns and malpractices – if I can say that – in other countries.
Dr Hunter has come from an environment where there was a moratorium at one stage, the United Kingdom. From what I have read, this was because companies were able to tick the box because there was either one person or no one checking the wells that were being drilled.
I have a PowerPoint presentation, but unfortunately I have not had time to download – I do not have a media section, but I have her speech to the Cattlemen’s Association conference on a memory stick. I have not had time to get that typed.
I can go on with some of the things she said in this document – ‘Put out of your mind the issues you have heard of in the USA, the Gasland phenomenon’. She asked why the two industries are in conflict and talked about petroleum versus pastoralism. She also talked about the risks. I agree; included in some of the risks I would be concerned about are water resources. She said that fracking is not the issue, as fracking itself is not the form or origin of contamination. It is the surface contamination that can be the issue.
You can store chemicals on the ground, but you have to ensure those chemicals are not released into the ground water. The ground water in shale is a lot closer than the gas is to the possibility of contamination. She talks about the use and contamination of water resources and protection through well construction. They are all issues that I am concerned about.
I am pleased that one good thing has come from the government; water extraction will not be exempt from the Water Act. That is an important change. We know the issues in Mataranka, and some of the issues in relation to water use were not necessarily about the water licences provided by the government. There were companies mining further down the Roper River and there was little control over the water consumption. It is a good thing the Water Act will now cover water from mining sites.
Well integrity is important to ensure the well is as sealed as possible to try to reduce methane – the release of the greenhouse gas methane is a problem with fracking – and ensure there is no contamination from above.
I do not think the issue has gone away. If we are to ensure the integrity of wells is actioned, as it should be, they need to be designed and constructed with inspection by the department.
It is no different to when the floor of this building was poured. There would have been a building inspector to ensure the concrete was the right consistency, the slab had reinforcing rods in it, ARC mesh, and it could not be ticked off by the company; it had to be an independent inspector.
We need to ensure if that is not done there are adequate penalties. I know that there are penalties under the Petroleum Act, but we need to give confidence to people by ensuring the regulations in place are more than just typing on a piece of paper, and that those regulations are carried out to the letter of the law. If they are not, I will not support this industry.
The industry has to ensure, as Tina Hunter said, that the decisions it makes take into account both the long- and short-term economic, environmental, social and equitable considerations. She talks about the precautionary principles, the principles of intergenerational equity, the conservation of biological diversity and improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms which should be promoted.
I heard the Minister for Mines and Energy talk about the benefits, which is fine. The benefits, hopefully, will be advantageous for the Northern Territory, but we must always keep sustainability in mind. An industry that is sustainable is one that, in the future, does not cost.
The good professor also talks about the principle of ALARP – reduce risk as low as reasonably practicable. She quoted the definition of ‘reasonably practicable’ from a Court of Appeal ruling:
I cannot speak for everything she has in here, but she comments on the moratorium. I am reading from the notes, where she says, ‘It is not the answer. We need a scientific approach and knowledge basis as the answer.’
I have some other issues with it. We need to take into account – the member for Port Darwin said 55 000 wells. I spoke to John Fenton yesterday, who seems a decent sort of fellow. He lives in Wyoming and he showed me pictures of what a large number of wells looks like. There is an issue with what effect this will have on the aesthetics of the environment. People might say that 55 000 wind turbines could affect the landscape as well.
For me the issue is that if you go ahead with this, when they finish their life, what will you do to bring the landscape back to what it was before? You will never bring it back perfectly. Will you fix the roads? The key issue which has not been answered is what the regulations or process will be to ensure these wells are capped and sealed. My understanding – and I have not heard from anyone yet – is that we are yet to come up with a design for capping wells that have finished their life. I raised this at the AFANT meeting and got a fairly broad answer from the CEO of Mines. It was not satisfactory because this issue is just as important as building the wells and what will happen to them when you finish with them.
I am not saying I give the big tick to fracking. I have concerns about whether we should use all our gas or leave some of it in the ground. I would hate it to get to the stage where we sell our gas offshore and find we have none left and need to buy it back at higher prices. I am not sure why we cannot leave some of the gas in the ground for when we might need it.
Mr Elferink: We want to pump it into Australia.
Mr WOOD: It is in the ground. If you are selling it then you are not keeping it for us; you are selling it to another country.
Mr Elferink: It is going to Mount Isa and on to the gas supply.
Mr WOOD: In discussions with the Minister for Mines and Energy the money we get from selling our gas was mentioned. I believe we should keep some of our gas reserved for when we need it.
Mr Elferink: I am pretty sure we are building a pipeline ...
Mr WOOD: It is like eating your cake and having nothing left. I do not have time to pick up on the interjections, but I raise that as an issue. Gas is important, as much as we would like other forms of energy when it comes to cooking and eating. I am sure if you live in Alice Springs or Tennant Creek in the winter you would want something to warm the house. You will not necessarily do it with solar. We need gas, but we need to develop this very carefully. I think we are at least going down that path.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am a little disappointed, but probably not surprised that the member for Karama has chosen the issue of fracking to dog-whistle to people in her electorate and more broadly across the NT.
It is a bit sad that the member for Karama has stooped to this. I expected better from her. She apparently has been caught up in all the hysteria around the issue of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking as it is colloquially known across the globe.
I ask a rhetorical question. The member for Karama is so incensed by hydraulic fracturing and the issues around it. Why is this an issue now and not when she was the Deputy Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, a senior minister in the Labor government, a member of parliament from 2001 until now, or for the 11 years the Labor Party was in power? Why is it an issue now but was not an issue when she was in a position to call the fracking industry to account? Why now?
It goes back to my opening remark about dog-whistling to the community and her electorate. She sees this as an opportunity to grab some popular support around a very contentious, yet misunderstood issue in Australia and the Northern Territory. For that, I am profoundly disappointed in the member for Karama.
As we well know, fracking has been around the globe for a very long time. I did a little research on this and I understand fracking, in its very early stages, commenced in the 1800s when explosives – nitroglycerin or dynamite – were used in the process to release more oil from oil-bearing rocks deep underground. That effectively meant drilling a well, running it until the oil flow stopped or slowed, then dropping a stick of gelignite down the hole, blowing it up and allowing more gas to release. That is my understanding of the very early fracking operations.
Of course, things have changed since then. The industry now employs the use of water, chemicals and sand, under very high pressure, to …
Mr Elferink: Occasionally coffee grounds and walnut shells.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: That is right, and fracture rocks, in the case of deep shale, deep underground. The composition of that is 90% water, about 9.5% sand – the sand is used as a proppant, which is something that holds the cracks or fissures once that fracture has occurred – and about 0.5% of the fracking fluid is a bunch of chemicals. I understand in some jurisdictions in the United States they are allowed to use particularly nasty chemicals that they call BTEX chemicals – benzene, toluene and another two I cannot remember the names of.
Those chemicals have been banned from use in the Northern Territory. The chemicals used in fracking operations in the Territory, and in Australia, are relatively benign. I do not think that is the issue; the big issue around fracking is the potential for contaminants to enter the water.
If you peel away the layers to the core issue, I think most people have concerns about the effect this industry could have on the water supply, water tables and surface water.
Before I explain more about that and my understanding of it, I want to go back in history to what happened in the Territory. In 2012 the Hunter report came out – by Tina Hunter who has already been referred to by members of the House – which was a reflection upon the Labor government’s regulatory regime prior to 2012. The report suggested that a huge amount of work was needed on the regulatory regime.
When the Country Liberals came to government we took on board the recommendations of the Hunter report and redoubled our efforts to improve the regulatory regime in the Northern Territory. We went nationally and internationally to look at the very best regulatory environments that we could find, including those of the United States. Not only did we look for the best regulations, we also looked for what went wrong.
As a jurisdiction, through our regulatory process, we could significantly reduce the risk of those types of events happening – those bad things that have happened. The Department of Mines and Energy has been doggedly marching on with that process for a few years.
We got to the point where the furore was building around the oil and gas industry, so this government commissioned Dr Allan Hawke to do some work, listen to the community and hear what it has to say, and understand the issues in the Northern Territory context. I read his report, but I have not read it in a while so I cannot refer to it in fine detail. He basically said fracking in the Northern Territory is okay as long as there is a robust regulatory environment. That is what we have been working towards. This government has taken a number of huge steps to ensure the regulatory environment is tough enough to ensure we minimise all risk to the environment.
The member for Nelson referred to the report also. Dr Tina Hunter looked at our proposed regulations and came up with a dozen or so tweaks that will be taken on board by the department and the government when implementing those new regulations. We are heading towards the very best regulatory environment we can possibly have to safeguard water in the Northern Territory. I am just using that as the nub. That is the central issue most people seem to have.
While that process has been ongoing, the government has taken some policy decisions around how we deal with the oil and gas industry. I refer to this diagram of the Northern Territory. This is a representation of the petroleum permits we inherited from the Labor government in 2012. About 96% of the Territory was either under application or granted tenure for oil and gas. Just remember, the member for Karama, who is now bitterly complaining about the oil and gas industry, was a part of the government that allowed this situation to develop. I will seek leave at the end of my speech to table this document. It comes off the CORE website for the Department of Mines and Energy and is freely available to the public.
That was in a regulatory environment – 96% of the Territory under application or granted tenure – that was acknowledged by Dr Tina Hunter as sadly lacking. We inherited that and we moved immediately to improve and increase the work being done on that regulatory environment. We got to a point where we can say – I have another diagram – that this is now granted tenure. This document is also freely available on the CORE website, which lends credence to what the Chief Minister and the Minister for Mines and Energy said last year about a go-slow. We put everything on hold. Let us take a breath and see what happens.
In the meantime we are, as a government working through the department, trying to work out how we can safeguard areas of the Northern Territory from an industry that perhaps should not be in certain parts of the Territory. The Katherine Town Council, because it was lobbied heavily and was filled with members who had very strong opinions about the oil and gas industry, wanted the municipal boundary of Katherine to be declared a reserve area. The government railed against that, and there was a good reason for it. Setting a municipal boundary as the boundary where oil and gas activity cannot occur was not good enough or robust enough, so we moved to extend it.
We moved to ensure areas outside of the town boundary got the protection they needed. That is when the Chief Minister announced last year, I think it was 18 November, in a press release – he talked about residential areas being protected, including rural residential, areas of high agricultural value, areas of cultural significance and areas that it is important to protect in an environmental sense. Those areas in the Katherine context do not reside within the municipal boundary.
I am sitting in a hot bed of concern about the oil and gas industry and fracking in Katherine, so I am under a lot of pressure. I am talking to the Minister for Mines and Energy and the Chief Minister about a solution, and between us, with great help from the Department of Mines and Energy, we came up with a much better model of protecting areas that need to be protected rather than going by the municipal boundary.
As happened in the Adelaide River area with the member for Daly, I have also worked with the Chief Minister to ensure areas around Katherine that must be protected will be protected from exploitation in the oil and gas industry. That was a must for me and I have worked extremely hard to ensure that happens.
This is an important matter to discuss, but not in the context in which the member for Karama has raised it tonight. That is cheap politicking. Let us work on a solution that ensures we can have a strong economy into the future with a diverse group of industries – the oil and gas industry being one of them – driving the economic development of the Territory whilst ensuring the environment is protected.
There is so much more I could say, but I only have a couple of minutes left. There is a lot of hysteria around the gas industry, with a lot of misinformation being promulgated, picked up by the member for Karama in putting together this MPI. The member for Port Darwin mentioned the movie Gasland. Gasland was a classic example of a successful attempt at stirring up hysteria around the oil and gas industry. Gas coming out of the tap and being lit is a compelling picture.
He mentioned something the Colorado Department of Natural Resources said, which was never reported in the movie because it was an inconvenient truth. The Markham and McClure wells:
Biogenic gas, as opposed to thermogenic gas, is something you would find if there was a fracking operation causing it. In 1976 that department also found a concerning amount of methane in local water supplies. This is something that happens naturally across the globe. Gas is a naturally occurring substance, as is water. Where the two come together, sometimes you get a mix of both.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am very disappointed in the member for Karama. I wish I had much longer to talk about this. Perhaps if there is a ministerial statement, I will take the opportunity to do so.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Karama for bringing forward a matter of public importance that is essentially about the Territory’s natural resources. Every member of this parliament, either Indigenous or non-Indigenous, is a custodian of our Northern Territory’s natural resources, with a great responsibility. Anyone who has not been in their electorates, amongst constituents, talking about the issue of exploration of onshore oil and gas is not doing their job. This certainly is a matter of public importance.
I would like to reflect on history and make some comments on the CLP’s management of the Territory’s natural resources. I remember an estimates process where I was questioning the then minister for natural resources on increased budget appropriations for the studies of hydrology, geology and the Territory’s natural resources in the lead up to any movement in exploration for onshore oil and gas. I was treated with contempt, but that was the CLP’s benchmark, which we have become familiar with as an opposition.
That minister is no longer a minister, he is a disgraced ex-minister. I am very disappointed in him because his dismissal compromises every decision he ever made in those ministries. That ex-minister is disgraced and is on the back bench.
I followed that minister’s work because there was some important work occurring. This issue was of great concern to me because through two budget estimates processes the analysis then became about the CLP government, which appropriated over $1m to golf clubs in Alice Springs and Katherine. The allocation to further studies into natural resources in the 2015-16 budget estimate was $41 129, but the actual was $40 772.
Surely if we are embarking on a frontier industry in Northern Australia we would see significant budget appropriations towards studying a scientific approach to doing this properly. I have been privileged to be a member of the Committee on the Northern Territory’s Energy Future, where we have been researching amazing material and fantastic learnings. But we had a government that was all talk and no action, which was fleshed out in the estimates processes.
The member for Katherine is now trying to rewrite history. Give credit where credit is due; the CLP started to follow Labor’s lead. The CLP realised public sentiment was serious and concerned. They discovered that they had better do something about it before going headlong into the unknown.
I do not give a damn about what the members tonight have said about America and Russia; this is about the Northern Territory. This is new country. This is frontier, alternative, deep oil and gas.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! How long will the moratorium be?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.
Mr McCARTHY: The Minister for Business stood in this House today and said he wants the Northern Territory to be the epicentre of the oil and gas industry. That is the minister’s desire. We have not seen any initiative in this area. We have seen the CLP follow Labor’s lead and now try to play catch-up football.
The Minister for Business, in a contribution to a debate about reducing red tape, said the gas is trapped between two layers of impervious rock, and he gave us a hand gesture to show us what that looks like. He then went on to say, ‘There is lots of it down there’.
This Minister for Business desires to capture all these proposed opportunities for the Northern Territory, and he uses a hand gesture and a couple of cheap quotes. There was no talk of geology or hydrology, and no understanding of fractures or fault lines. There was no understanding of well integrity. There were only one-liners in a cheap contribution to a debate in terms of trying to score political points. This about the Territory’s natural resources, and Labor’s position with a moratorium is clear and defined.
We have to look at resources, and the disgraced member for Katherine, the disgraced minister for natural resources – Northern Territory Supreme Court’s decision directed the minister to reassess the analysis of water allocations, based on science. The Supreme Court declared that the minister had erred and he had to review 18 water allocations. This is an example of trust. It does not matter what the CLP says; nobody trusts you anymore. Nobody believes you anymore. You can say what you like, but nobody trusts the CLP and nobody believes a word the Chief Minister says.
I sat in a very interesting rally last night, which was organised by the Northern Territory Lock the Gate Alliance. I witnessed around 60 to 80 people, who looked like articulate, well-presented Territorians and who I expected to be CLP supporters, lay scorn on the CLP. It was about a very important NT natural resources issue, but it was also about people who have lost trust in this government and do not believe what government is saying.
This CLP government has a rush on economic development and is pitting natural resources against each other. The development of one industry at the expense of another is not good economic or social policy. Now it is a game of catch-up football to try to get this across the line. The member for Karama has called this out.
I believe the general election in 2016 will define this. This will be an election issue, and it is. This government, which had no plans to appropriate the much-needed resources into the study of our natural resources, is now playing catch-up football to follow the Labor Party lead and is disgraced. It has no trust and lacks integrity, and Territorians will make their decision.
This is a very important matter of public importance. I will talk briefly about my communication with the pastoral sector, which is now dealing with land access issues, accountability of industry issues, coexistence issues of industry – where beef cattle are processed, run and grown – and the issue of compensation. There are some very interesting discussions that the ministers on the other side of the House need to be aware of. These negotiations are happening as we speak and there are far more questions than answers.
Let us look at what Labor will do. Territory Labor has a proud record of fighting to protect our natural resources and implementing world-leading environmental protection in government. Territory Labor understands good environment policy is smart economic and social policy. Territory Labor in government will create a comprehensive environmental protection framework, strengthen the Environment Protection Authority and establish an office of independent scientists. This framework will restore integrity and transparency for environmental approval and monitoring, ensuring development is environmentally and economically sustainable, and give business and industry confidence to invest and create jobs.
Territory Labor will transfer all environmental assessment, oversight and enforcement powers to the department of the Environment and the Environment Protection Authority, properly funding these enforcement bodies to do the work. Territory Labor will restore funding to non-government organisations and environmental watchdogs, such as the Environment Centre NT and the Arid Lands Environment Centre.
Territory Labor’s energy policy embraces, encourages and invests in existing and emerging renewable technology, encouraging development of renewable energy programs for remote communities to reduce reliance on diesel fuel. Territory Labor will promote the development of renewable energy in urban areas to reduce the cost of power to households and the Territory’s carbon footprint.
Territory Labor recognises the importance and community concern about hydraulic fracturing for gas from deep shale and tight rock formations. Territory Labor will consider all factors associated with industry viability, including sustainable employment, environmental impacts, science-based research, coexistence with agricultural activities and landholder rights.
Considering all factors associated with development of an onshore shale gas industry, Territory Labor proposes a moratorium covering all unconventional gas prospecting, exploration and extraction activities. During the moratorium, Territory Labor will establish an independent expert advisory panel to undertake a scientific inquiry, including a peer review of the unconventional gas industry and reported field impacts. The inquiry will include critical baseline ground water and surface water studies, baseline fugitive emissions data collection, fault line mapping, baseline health impact assessments and identification of priority areas as no-go zones. The panel will consist of reputable experts from fields covering environmental and biological science, water resources, eco toxicology, workforce planning, petroleum regulation and public health.
Territory Labor will undertake a comprehensive community consultation process across all regions, engaging relevant stakeholder and community groups through a research process, influencing any final decisions. This position from Territory Labor is the responsible, smart position and what the CLP is trying to play catch-up on. This position is a clear policy on making sure any natural resources in the development of the Northern Territory and northern Australia are protected. It will not be a CLP rush, looking for a signature economic project like the pipeline between Tennant Creek and Mount Isa.
This will be in the interests of all Territorians; this recognises traditional owners, our communities and the people who live in urban areas. Essentially this recognises Territorians.
This is what Territorians are listening to; it is what they want and it will be delivered by a future Labor government if judged worthy by Territorians. The member for Karama has introduced this matter of public importance and it has been rejected by the Chief Minister. It will go to the Northern Territory general election in 2016 and be judged accordingly.
Mr Elferink: How will the moratorium be?
Mr McCARTHY: Unfortunately for the CLP, in three-and-a-half years you have trashed your brand, lost the trust of Territorians and lost integrity. Therefore, you will be judged accordingly. This issue is one of many issues, but the Territory’s natural resources are finite. We have been given custody of them as members of this House. This would seriously be a bipartisan issue if it were not for the arrogance of this government and its punitive nature. It will be judged accordingly by Territorians; make no bones about that.
There is talk in this House by politicians masquerading as mining engineers and analysts, saying, ‘I have read this and I have read that’. This is about the Northern Territory and you should understand that. There is no excuse for ignorance as a member of parliament.
Mr Elferink: How long is the moratorium? Tell us that.
Mr McCARTHY: The interjections from the member for Port Darwin are pathetic. Labor’s policy is stated very clearly and I hope the Territory judges it to be fair and worthy because we will protect and we will develop the Territory sustainably and safely. We will and the member for Port Darwin will not.
Mr STYLES (Deputy Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, I was not going to add to this debate, but I cannot help myself with some of the statements made by the member for Barkly. He was just indicating to this side of the Chamber and suggesting that politicians here are trying to be miners, engineers and experts.
I really struggle to understand – he is supporting the member for Karama, who brought this motion to this House and said, ‘I have been out talking to people and learning a lot’. Then she went on to say all sorts of things about what she has learnt from talking to some people.
We got Dr Allan Hawke, who is probably one of the most respected people in this country, to review all the previous reviews, and then he said, ‘I want this whole report of mine peer assessed’. He did not just say, ‘Here is the report’. In his recommendations he states that he wants it peer assessed.
Obviously the other side of the House does not listen, because I have already said this in this House. Nine countries sent their experts from around the world – environmental protection authorities and chief scientists from various organisations and countries were in Sydney in September 2015 to peer assess someone who had done an assessment of all the previous reports.
They all endorsed the fact there is no justification for a moratorium on fracking in the Northern Territory if you follow the recommendations. For a member to stand on the opposition side of this Chamber and accuse us of wanting to be engineers and miners – and the very person sitting behind that member is the person who introduced this into this Chamber – is a bit hypocritical. I just do not know where they get their thoughts from.
The member for Barkly talked about looking after our natural resources. We are in competition with the states next to us. What advice will the member for Barkly give to his Labor colleagues in Queensland and South Australia who are begging to get this investment and these jobs into their state? Why does the Leader of the Opposition – the one-man wrecking ball in the Northern Territory – come into this House and say, ‘I will have a moratorium on fracking and go against every other Labor state; I will go against all the Labor people in federal politics and go against industry and all the learned scientists in the world’?
The member for Barkly has the gall to say that we are trying to be miners and scientists, and whatever he said in addition to that. The Leader of the Opposition comes in and says, ‘I am not listening to that’. The President of the Labor Party commented on the moratorium when the Leader of the Opposition disappeared out of town, the day after he made his commitment to a moratorium on fracking. He said, ‘We will do this’, and was then asked if he read the report, to which he said, ‘No, I do not need to’. I think he said something along the lines of, ‘I do not agree with it’.
Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is doing, just not agreeing with the science? And he wants to see more science. We also heard from the member for Nightcliff, who said a couple of months ago, ‘We want to see the science’. We then gave them the information and they said, ‘Oh, maybe we should read that’. I do not know if they have read either of the Hawke reports, and I do not know what has been going on over there. The rhetoric has changed a little.
I heard someone from that side – I think the Leader of the Opposition – say something like, ‘We want to look at how it impacts on the Northern Territory’. The member for Barkly said that I did not go into a geological explanation about what is going on. I thought it would be appropriate for some young people, older people and people who are not engineers or miners – and I am no expert – to get a basic report, which was given to me by people who understand this stuff. An impervious level – here are the hand gestures again, member for Barkly; one on the bottom and one on the top. There is a lot of shale gas between these two impervious layers of rock, and there is no water in there. It is a simple explanation, and I am not trying to be an engineer or geologist.
The other point made by the member for Barkly was, ‘No one believes the government’. You do not have to believe us. All we are doing is espousing what the recognised world experts are saying. Dr Allan Hawke is respected on both sides of politics and is a former chief of staff for former Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating. He has worked in the industry for many years. He is a trusted source for the Labor Party. The member for Nelson spoke about Tina Hunter, an expert in these matters, who said fracking is not the issue. The issue is in the regulations.
It is amazing that these people have not read this stuff, yet they say we should not do this or that. I say to the member for Barkly and members opposite, you do not have to listen to us if you choose not to. But the science is there. There are people who are not on our side, Labor’s side or anyone else’s side all saying the same thing. That is who we are listening to. We are not pretending to be miners, engineers or experts. We are listening to the experts.
I would rather listen to the world experts and those from across this nation and the world who have not only talked to a few people but have recognised qualifications and experience in these issues than the member for Karama, who said, ‘I have spoken to a few people’.
Mr Chandler: Any day.
Mr STYLES: Any day. Not just one expert, but experts from across the world. The point needs to be made – and I accept that the member for Karama has spoken to a few people and has some concerns – that when she says that all this is fact, then I challenge some of that.
She talked about a man from Wyoming, who has a problem with gas coming out of the ground. I spoke to a gentleman recently who is a truckie, and he used to cart material into Moomba. He was talking about fracking and he told me that 30 years ago, when he was trucking into the Moomba site in South Australia, when he had a shower it smelled of gas. He made some inquiries. In Moomba this gas comes out of the shale rock and leaches out of the ground naturally. When you walk around Moomba you can smell this gas.
There are so many things we hear from the members opposite that do not seem to add up when you look at the science from around the world. I accept that some people say it is terrible and that kids are suffering. If that is the case, something should be done about it. But I understand it is a different form of gas exploration there and we have a totally different system here.
The member for Barkly also said we have a new type of drilling – I did not quite get the words – and something is new about this. It is not. We have been doing this for nearly 50 years in the Northern Territory. Labor in South Australia supports shale gas extraction and they have been at it for about the same amount of time with no incidents. Labor in South Australia is saying it does not have a problem with the fracking of shale gas. Labor in Queensland does not have a problem with fracking shale gas there. They have some issues with coal seam gas, but that is different.
Bill Shorten, I am told, cannot understand what the Leader of the Opposition in the Northern Territory is doing. He is out of step with everyone else around this country and the experts of the world. I cannot understand that, and the question needs to be put to him time and again until he answers it. Why will he not take the worldwide science? Why does he want another inquiry? How long will the moratorium be? What will happen?
I hear the member for Barkly say they want to have an inquiry and ensure they can get it right. I can assure you, member for Barkly, those jobs will not be there. You cannot introduce sovereign risk into an equation when you talk about various things like this. I heard you talk in your statement about the moratorium, and I will check the Hansard, something about how you will stop exploration and extraction activities. My understanding from that statement is that you will shut down the onshore gas industry. If the words I think I heard are correct and you shut down extraction activities, it means you will shut down onshore gas in the Northern Territory while you have this inquiry.
That means that the lights will off in Alice Springs, Tennant Creek and Yulara, which will be disgraceful.
Mr McCarthy: Rubbish.
Mr STYLES: Well, you said it and I will check.
Mr McCarthy: Read the Hansard.
Mr STYLES: I will read the Hansard because I thought that was what I heard. You will shut down an industry and those people will choose to go elsewhere in the world. Businesses operate like that; they will not sit and wait for any of us to make a decision.
When the science is in, it is irrefutable. But you then say you want another inquiry because you are looking for something that suggests you are right. You have not been able to find one for years, but you are still looking for someone who will say this is terrible. But the science is in and it is there for all to read.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask that all members reject this matter of public importance.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to talk about a couple of things that have been happening in my electorate. The first is that the Aussie rules football season for the Top End has concluded, as we know. We had some terrific games played by many teams, including the sensational women’s final between the Waratahs and the Wanderers. Okay, the men’s final was sensational too, with the Saints taking out the flag again, because it is such a gun team with some stunning football manoeuvres and good goal keeping, just pipping the Wanderers to the post in taking the finals flag.
As with most years, Top End footy, including the footy on the Tiwi Islands, provides much entertainment to many people, young and old, and lots of visitors.
I will focus briefly on the exploits of the Southern Districts Football Club, especially the Under 12 side at its grand final game. The finals game was between Southern Districts and Nightcliff, and provided the highlight of the NTFL junior grand final day. The Crocs’ Under 12 side lived out a dream when it won the Atkinson division grand final from a near impossible position. Down by eight points in the last quarter to the Nightcliff side, which had dominated since the start of the second quarter, the Crocs snapped their collective jaws and pounced, as only a ferocious crocodile can on its prey.
I am told that not even the sight of the timekeeper with his hand on the button to signal the end of the game could stop two lightning-quick raids into the forward line and two match-winning goals. The young players, I am told, never gave up and it is a credit to them and their coach, supporters and families that they continued to fight for the glory of the finals cup.
Coach Jason Grace said, ‘They were never out of the hunt’. He knew the boys could pull off the win. He went on to say, ‘They all have big hearts and can play all day’.
Coach Jason spoke to the young fellas at three-quarter time and said, ‘This is it. It is the last bit of the season, the finals push.’ And they came back magnificently. Coach Jason said Patrick Snell at fullback, and later on wing, was by far his side’s best player, followed by Rohan Bailey and Jack Brown through the midfield.
The team put in their best effort on the day and reaped the rewards of dedicated training, hard work, a bit of sweat and maybe a hand from Lady Luck. Well done to the Under 12 team and a big thank you to Jason Grace for giving up his time to coach the team and take them through to the finals and the history books. Big congratulations to the Southern Districts Football Club, including president Sam Eyles, the committee, players, coaches and volunteers, who turn up every week in the footy season to do what it takes to have a successful, popular and well-regarded footy club.
I turn my attention to another fast and furious sport undertaken in the rural area: polocrosse. For the uninitiated, this game is not polo and not lacrosse, but a combination of both. It is mostly played in the rural area and we have 100 to 150 people who play this sport in the Top End. We have five clubs. It started in the NT just before Cyclone Tracy when a group of interested people got together and was looking to set it up here. They met in Marrara and relocated the main base of polocrosse games to Freds Pass, as many of us know.
As I speak, the Australian polocrosse nationals are being held in Albury. They started on 18 April and go until this Sunday. We have teams who have gone there: an open senior mixed tristate team; an Under 21 mixed tristate team; a junior girls’ tristate team; and an open men’s team. Given that we are a small jurisdiction we do not have the luxury of providing all team members to a specific team, which is why we have mixed tristate teams. Players come from other states and they play in a combined team.
When these teams and players go interstate it is a long haul for them. Many of them take their own horses and floats, and they camp there. It is a long way and a big commitment for these people. It is also a big commitment for the coaches and managers who accompany them. It can also be expensive, but they do it for the love of the sport and participating in something very Australian. Polocrosse was developed by two Australians many years ago.
I want to mention the players for the record because I think it is important to know the mix of people playing polocrosse at a national level. Bear in mind, only two years ago we had the nationals in Darwin. We have a very good facility at Freds Pass, but it needs a lot more work and funding, Sport minister, to make it a fully flash polocrosse centre – perhaps a lake-view hall. It could be nicely enclosed with air conditioning and a meeting room that is good for entertainment and weddings, and polocrosse grand final victory nights.
The open men’s team included: Paul Hassall; Bernie Brosnan; Daniel Clarke; Larry Phillips; Brian Davidge; Gerard Maley; his brother Peter Maley; Noel Hassall as the coach; and Nicky McMaster as the manager.
The open senor mixed tristate team included: Richard Alley, NT; Ben Guest, NT; Matt Prior, SA; Rob Wait, NT; Emily Coleman, NT; Jessie-Lee Taylor, NT; Amy Grubb, TAS; Tegan Voorham, TAS; Daniel South as the coach; and Angie Harrison as the manager.
The Under 21 mixed tristate team included: Sarah Wyatt, NT; Karina Brink, NT; Tayla Larsson, NT; Lucinda Covill, WA; Jake Burgdorf, VIC; Travis Tremellan, SA; Brodie Medlock, SA; Will Jones, TAS; and Toni Larsson, who we all know is a lovely person and keen on polocrosse, is their manager.
The junior girls tristate team was: Jessica Rogers, NT; Sharia Piening, NT; Amelia Petherick, NT; Holly Wittig, SA; Isabelle Greenhill, TAS; Nikola Holz, NSW; Leah Wilson, NSW; Chris Wittig as coach; and Summah Greenhill as manager.
I have seen some of the results on the various Facebook pages of individuals and the Polocrosse Association. They are doing well, playing hard and representing the Territory well. As we say, they are punching well above their weight, as most Territory sportspeople do when they go interstate.
Congratulations to all the polocrosse people. I wish them the very best in the finals.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to talk about an important matter, being the Northern Territory’s most treasured and recognisable landmark, Aboriginal enterprise and creating a new world-class tourism product.
It appears the federal government is yet again considering placing a total and permanent ban on climbing Uluru. The first point to make about this ludicrous suggestion is that this should be a decision for Territorians, not for bureaucrats in Canberra. Canberra’s current position is that it is ‘working towards closure of the climb’. It says the climb will be permanently closed when less than 20% of Uluru visitors climb the Rock. While there is no evidence that conditions have been met, it appears that outside forces are gathering to interfere. A condition of the management plan is that 18 months’ notice is required to close the climb, but Canberra appears to be in a hurry.
But there are pros and cons in allowing the climb. This is an issue that transcends party politics, and I invite all honourable members and all Territorians to have a grown-up discussion on its merits, particularly the traditional owners. A snap ban by Canberra makes about as much sense as the kneejerk ban by the Labor government at the time on live cattle exports; it could do almost as much damage.
The arguments against allowing people to climb the rock include the opposition by some, but certainly not all, traditional owners and Anangu. Uluru is a sacred site, but the local Anangu have not placed a ban on climbing. At the moment it is a personal decision. The Anangu, of course, feel a great spiritual connection to Uluru. They are also concerned, quite rightly, about safety because they feel a sense of responsibility for the safety of visitors to their land and to that cultural site.
Yes, there are safety issues. The climb is not an easy climb; it is an arduous one which has claimed the lives of more than 35 people since the 1950s, mostly due to heart failure. The arguments in favour of the climb, of allowing a properly regulated climb, are compelling as well.
I was at Uluru a couple of weeks ago with one of Australia’s greatest golfers and one of the best sports people to come out of northern Australia, Greg Norman. At the time, the rock was closed due to high winds. There was no wind at the base, but allegedly there were high winds on top. But he, like I, could see the benefits of allowing people to climb.
Just prior to that visit to Uluru I was in Sydney, coincidentally watching people climb the Sydney Harbour Bridge. More than three million people from over 100 countries have climbed the bridge since the climb was opened in 1998. The experience has been voted as one of the world’s most spectacular and exhilarating.
It is now considered to be the number one experience in Sydney. I am fully aware that the Sydney Harbour Bridge does not have the spiritual significance of Uluru to the traditional owners, but allowing the Uluru climb will allow visitors to better understand its unique Indigenous cultural significance for the Anangu.
There are plenty of examples worldwide of culturally sensitive sites and tourism experiences combining successfully. The temple of Angkor Wat in Cambodia, the Taj Mahal in India and Machu Picchu in Peru all come to mind.
Uluru is as spectacular as or more so than any of those. It rises 348m above the plane and more than 860m above sea level. It is higher than the Eiffel Tower and a whole lot more beautiful. That is why 300 000 or more tourists travel to Uluru each year; many of them would want to climb if they knew it was condoned by the local Aboriginal people.
I believe we should explore the idea of creating a climb with stringent safety conditions and rules enforcing spiritual respect, which will be endorsed, supported and managed by the local Aboriginal community. The benefits would be obvious. I see an opportunity of tendering out such an experience to a safety provider to allow the climb to continue. As you look upon the rock you see, swinging in the breeze, the little chain that people are supposed to hold as they climb. It is a wonder not more than 35 people have lost their lives, whether through heart failure or falling. Such an approach would see substantial benefits. It would be consistent with the government’s Indigenous economic empowerment strategy and would see a great opportunity for local Anangu to participate in a lucrative business and create much-needed local jobs on that culturally significant site.
It would also capture the world’s attention with a culturally sensitive tourism product delivering an unforgettable experience in the spiritual heart of Australia. Another advantage would be that, along with safety requirements, you could tightly control the numbers, which does not happen at the moment. In short, there would be significant economic benefits for the local Indigenous population and economic benefits for the Northern Territory as a whole. It would allow us to be able to increase our marketing opportunities for the tourism sector in the Northern Territory and it would add to people’s tourism experience in the Northern Territory. This is something that Anangu people and Territorians should be having a conversation about, not something that bureaucrats in Canberra should have knee-jerk reactions to.
I move onto a topic which arose during Question Time today when the member for Casuarina asked about Indigenous housing in remote parts of the Northern Territory. It is very cute of the member for Casuarina to talk about Indigenous housing, as she should be well aware that the framework in which we have been implementing the Indigenous housing program has continued to be the framework developed by Labor. That framework was a $1.8bn program that did not see an additional bedroom built under the former Labor government. Fortunately, we have been able to change the parameters of that program and we are now building more bedrooms.
I recall, in Question Time, the member for Nhulunbuy interjecting about Labor’s failures. I thought to myself, ‘How many houses were built in the member for Nhulunbuy’s electorate during the four years of tenure between 2008 and 2012, when she came to parliament in the time of the Labor government?’ I cannot think of an additional house in Gove, Ski Beach, Yirrkala, Galiwinku, Milingimbi, Ramingining or Groote Eylandt. I do not think one additional house was built in the member for Nhulunbuy’s electorate in that time. Like always, the member for Nhulunbuy, as a failure in this Chamber, likes to spruik against others, but will not take responsibility. I thought I should point that out.
Maybe that is a lesson for the member for Casuarina. Perhaps ask me a question about Indigenous housing in Question Time tomorrow and I will be happy to refresh your memory. I will also be happy to illustrate that the member for Wanguri was the adviser to the former Housing minister, Chris Burns, who came up with the framework of not building any new bedrooms in Aboriginal communities. I can also highlight that Labor took all those houses off Aboriginal people in those communities.
Member for Casuarina, please ask me a question about Indigenous housing tomorrow, I beg of you. I bet you will not, because I will illustrate those important things, including the failures of the Labor government.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to give a shout out to 95-year-old Alma Radford. My wife and I were honoured to help Alma celebrate her milestone birthday along with her daughters, Carol and Maxine.
Alma is one of a kind. She is one of 14 children and was born in Kyabram, Victoria, in 1921. During World War II eight of her brothers went to war, four of whom were Rats of Tobruk. Alma worked at Seymour Railway Station, serving refreshments to 900 Army members per train. It was an exceedingly busy time. She came to Adelaide River in 1974 with her husband and children. She is very much a part of our community, always happy to help out, and most of us cannot keep up with her. She always goes to the Adelaide River pub of a Friday night to catch up with her friends. She is a much-loved community member. Happy birthday, Alma.
Turning to another part of my electorate, I pay tribute to Wadeye. Many bad things have been said about the Wadeye community in the past, but you do not hear enough about the good things. There are a few, for example, the excellent work of the Thamarrurr Development Corporation rangers. I was proud to announce last month a Northern Territory grant of $11 500 towards a recycling project through the women’s ranger team. The TDC rangers identified the need to tackle the community’s rubbish problems and started a recycling project, part of a broader program to raise community awareness and reduce waste at Wadeye and the surrounding land and sea country.
In less than three months after the program started, more than 25 000 items of rubbish had been brought to the ranger base by about 80 community members. As well as the rangers, it is important to recognise others supporting the project. Community organisations, the local community development project, West Daly Regional Council, the Murin freight company and Bevcon Recycling in Darwin have all become part of the project, which sees recycled rubbish from the area shipped to Darwin and refund proceeds placed in an account to further the project.
The NT government grant will go towards directly engaging with locals, raising more awareness and support, a dedicated ranger for additional workloads and costs of the project. This is a great initiative which the TDC, the rangers and the whole community can be proud of.
Finally, in my portfolio of Arts and Museums, I remind members that there will be a new library management system rolled out across the Territory from the middle of this year. Remote libraries will be transitioned next year.
The new system is the next generation library management system to be used by 380 libraries worldwide. The Northern Territory government committed $541 000 in last year’s budget to the new system. We recognised there was a need. When you consider there are nearly 100 000 individual users of the current system, which is 16 years old, it is money well spent.
This is not a lead story but an important one. I pay tribute to the Northern Territory Library Director, Patrick Gregory, and his staff for their work to get this project under way. With 52 libraries across the NT, including a network of 32 public and community libraries supported by the Northern Territory Library, this modern and more functional system should be a welcome upgrade. It is something that can help us build a confident culture.
Mr BARRETT (Blain): Mr Deputy Speaker, as you are aware, it was National Youth Week last week. It ran from 8 to 17 April. For those of you who are good at maths, you will know that is not seven days; it is actually nine. That is because young people in the Northern Territory are so fantastic it took more than seven days to celebrate how great they are, so we took nine days instead of seven.
National Youth Week has been a joint collaborative initiative of the Australian state, territory and local governments since the year 2000. National Youth Week seeks to celebrate and recognise the positive contribution of young people in the community. The delivery of National Youth Week is underpinned by a commitment to involve young people in decision-making processes, and it encourages young people to actively engage with the delivery of National Youth Week activities. The government allocated $45 000 in grant funding to directly support drug and alcohol-free events and activities, and youth development opportunities during the 10-day celebration.
The Commonwealth government has also provided funding of $25 000 to support the grant round. With combined Northern Territory and Commonwealth government funding, an extraordinary array of events was held. National Youth Week celebrated Territory youth, but it also highlighted significant challenges, such as youth homelessness. National Youth Week provides us with an opportunity to recognise what is great for young people in the Northern Territory, but obliges us to recognise that there are significant hurdles we must overcome.
The Northern Territory government decommissioned a national planning group for National Youth Week and will not continue to provide grant and operational funding to fund states and territories for National Youth Week after 30 June 2017. This provides an opportunity for government to look at ways to support the program from 2018 onwards.
Overall, 70 events were held across the Northern Territory in celebration of National Youth Week. Of these 70 events and activities, 60% were funded by the NT government, and the remaining 40% were funded by local councils, non-government organisations and businesses.
Some of these events included the Palmy Pool Party on 8 April 2016 at Palmerston swimming and aquatic centre, hosted by the City of Palmerston and launched by me. It included games, challenges, music, a free barbecue and prizes. ShoutOut! hosted the Good Vibes Youth Fest on 9 April 2016 at Jingili Water Gardens. This event was a successful afternoon of skate competitions, yoga, art, therapy and local music.
I spoke earlier about the challenges faced by young people. Anglicare NT hosted the Youth Homelessness Matters Day couch surfing on 13 April at the Parliament House car park. This annual event aims to raise awareness of youth homelessness in the Northern Territory, as the Territory has the highest rate of youth homelessness across the nation. We must ensure that government, local government, non-government organisations and the community continue to work together to solve this very worrying issue.
Somerville Community Services in Katherine hosted a Wii and PlayStation gaming competition. The Alice Springs Town Council coordinated a recycled art competition that encouraged young people to repurpose and recycle materials creatively. Several communities in the Roper Gulf region celebrated National Youth Week with barbecues, community activities, discos, arts and crafts, and movie nights, with participation from the police, health workers and the community safety patrol.
I was able to attend many events in Darwin and Palmerston, and was allowed the opportunity to speak and engage with young people directly. A young person I was able to connect with at several of the events was Pritika Desai. Pritika is from Darwin and was recruited as the NT Ambassador for National Youth Week 2016. The Office of Youth Affairs appoints a young person to the position each year to assist in providing a youth perspective to planning NYW. Pritika is a Community Engagement Officer with the YMCA of the Top End and is an exceptional young role model.
Pritika was the 2015 Northern Territory Young Achiever of the Year and is the founder of ShoutOut!, a successful and well-regarded youth mental health program. Pritika credits the establishment of ShoutOut! to National Youth Week. In 2014 she coordinated her own National Youth Week event called ShoutOut! with a focus on youth mental health, which led to the program’s official establishment. During Youth Week Pritika has gone to a number of events, proving to be an excellent ambassador for the initiative and for young people. She attended the Palmy Pool Party, Youth Homelessness Matters Day couch surfing, Battle of the School Bands, TED Talks at TEDxYouth@Palmerston and the Young Achiever Awards.
Pritika, with the assistance of the YMCA, City of Darwin and ShoutOut!, coordinated her own event at Jingili Water Gardens called the Good Vibes Youth Fest. This government supported the event through the Office of Youth Affairs’ Youth Engagement Grants Program.
I take this opportunity to publicly thank Pritika for all the hard work she put into National Youth Week this year. She has been an outstanding ambassador, providing a valuable youth perspective to the planning of National Youth Week while attending numerous events, lifting the public profile of National Youth Week through speaking engagements and media interviews, and encouraging other young people to get involved in their community.
The official closing of National Youth Week this year coincided with the Young Achiever Awards. I personally congratulate all the nominees, finalists and winners. The Young Achiever Awards are a fantastic opportunity for the entire community to recognise and acknowledge the amazing contributions that young people are making throughout the Territory. Young people are taking the lead on areas such as business, the environment, leadership, caring for others and the arts. It makes me confident that the Territory has a bright future ahead with these young people helping to guide and contribute to decision-making. Big congratulations go to the winner of the Minister for Young Territorians’ Excellence in Youth Leadership Award, Sarah McLaughlin.
Sarah, 21 from Durack, has been a member of St John Ambulance NT for the past 13 years. Sarah was the youngest team member and led a St John Ambulance team on a healthcare and first-aid project in East Timor in 2015. Sarah has a passion for improving health and wellbeing in Aboriginal communities, and is currently researching and planning a proposal to put to the St John Ambulance NT Board.
The future of National Youth Week, with young people like Pritika and Sarah achieving and dedicating their time to important initiatives, is looking bright. The government recognises that National Youth Week 2016 has been a great success and values the outcomes it achieves for young people in the Northern Territory.
Congratulations to all who were involved this year.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Mr Deputy Speaker, a proposed telecommunications tower in Gunn has caused a bit of concern to constituents in my electorate. I want to update the House on what I have done so far.
There have been concerns over the telecommunications tower, which is proposed to be built on a vacant lot across from Sanctuary Lakes in Gunn. I have held meetings with concerned residents and the City of Palmerston Alderman. On Wednesday 13 April 2016 I held a community meeting at Sanctuary Lakes to allow the residents to voice their views and concerns about the proposed tower. There was a great turnout at the meeting, with all 60 residents in attendance. This was an excellent opportunity for me to hear firsthand the views of my constituents. Many open discussions were had and it allowed for opinions to be shared with all. A logical proposal was put forward and it received overwhelming support.
I will now write to the DCA, Optus and Vodafone to voice the concerns of my constituents. I will also write to the Minister for Lands and Planning as it involves him. Optus was extremely helpful in this process and will hold its own community information sessions on Wednesday 27 April 2016 at the Palmerston Library community room. There will be two information sessions; one from 2 pm to 3.30 pm and one from 6.30 pm to 7.30 pm. I look forward to working further with the DCA, Optus and Vodafone to reach a suitable outcome for the constituents of Brennan.
No one was against having better communications in our community, but the location of the proposed tower was causing some angst. I think we can achieve a good resolution to that.
On 6 and 7 April 2016 Darwin played host to two important transport-related national meetings. The Austroads board meeting was held on 6 April and the Transport and Infrastructure Senior Officials’ Committee meeting was held on 7 April. Both meetings were at the Darwin Convention Centre.
The Transport and Infrastructure Senior Officials’ Committee is the senior officials group that advises the Transport and Infrastructure Council, which is the ministerial-level council. The committee is composed of chief executive officers of Commonwealth, state, territory and New Zealand agencies with responsibility for transport and infrastructure issues.
The officials and the ministerial council are the mechanism by which the Northern Territory can advocate for transport reform at a national level. The main items on the agenda included land transport market reform, heavy vehicle road reform, transport technology and the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator’s future agenda.
It proved to be a successful meeting, with further work to be done to resolve some outstanding issues in preparation for the ministerial council meeting in May.
Austroads, on the other hand, is the association of Australasian road transport and traffic agencies. Its purpose is to improve Australian and New Zealand transport outcomes by providing technical input to national road transport policy development, improving the practices and capabilities of road agencies and promoting operational consistency by road agencies.
The Austroads Board comprises chief executives from each member organisation and provides policy and strategic direction to Austroads as well as approving its annual work plan and budget.
The main items on the agenda included Austroads’ strategic priorities and the future work programs to be completed by the various Austroads’ task forces, which include the technology network, freight road safety and registration and licensing task forces. Austroads has over 100 active projects through the relevant streams.
Of importance to the Territory are two of the strategic projects Austroads is undertaking. The first is focusing on funding and financing options for regional and remote roads, and the second will research the community service obligations of roads. These concepts are important for the Territory when considering the current broader conversation on road funding and pricing reform. The Northern Territory government welcomes Austroads’ research into these important issues.
Additionally, the Austroads Board has identified investigation and planning for the future introduction of automated vehicles as a strategic priority. There is a significant development in this space. In the future, as these technologies emerge, there are many implications for transport agencies, including how infrastructure is designed and operated, how vehicles are registered and how drivers are licensed. It will also be important to embrace and optimise potential safety benefits from emerging technology.
Having Darwin host important meetings like these also provides the added opportunity to showcase Darwin to these chief executives from states, territories and the Commonwealth who, when they return to their own state or territory, may have more of an appreciation of the environment in which we operate and how that affects our transport and infrastructure challenges. These meetings present an important opportunity for us to advocate for the Territory and for reform needed at the national level.
I extend my congratulations and thanks to the Department of Transport staff who organised and hosted these meetings. Much of their work goes unpraised, and praise is well deserved in this case.
As Minister for Veterans Support I recently established the Veterans’ Support Ministerial Advisory Council to provide advice and support to the Northern Territory government on issues affecting Australian Defence Force veterans and their families. The formation of the council marks an important milestone for Veterans Support in the Northern Territory, allowing a direct channel for veterans’ representative bodies to communicate with the government.
The council’s role is to monitor and provide advice on matters relating to the mental and physical welfare and wellbeing of veterans and the wider veterans’ community. The inaugural meeting of the council was held on 29 March 2016. The following office bearers were appointed at the inaugural meeting: Mr Bob Shewring was appointed as the chair of the council and Mr Don Milford was appointed deputy chair of the council.
The inaugural council meeting saw discussions held on the following issues: suggested improvements to the endorsed terms of reference; the need for a Northern Territory charter for veterans; the possibility of inviting additional organisations to nominate members; and quarterly short reports to be provided by council members regarding their organisation’s activities.
I intend to use the council’s advice to increase government understanding of veterans’ priorities on a range of issues and to make recommendations to benefit the veterans sector. The council will meet quarterly, with the next meeting being scheduled for 28 June 2016. The minutes of each meeting will be provided to me immediately following each meeting.
The Veterans’ Support Ministerial Advisory Council is a non-statutory advisory body. It is focused on monitoring and providing advice on matters relating to veterans and the veterans’ community.
I have gone into why I have set the council up and why it is important to our community. We all know that so many veterans are choosing to live long-term in the Territory after their military careers. It is important to recognise that while veterans and veterans’ affairs are traditionally a federal matter, these people live in our community. As the Northern Territory government, we also have a responsibility to ensure these people have another avenue to lobby, and my ability to lobby with Canberra will help their cause.
There was a call for this type of forum. If the federal government was providing all it could for veterans in the Northern Territory, I do not think there would be a call for a body like this. There has been a vacuum in certain areas. The federal government is doing a lot, but we should not be afraid of lifting up the rock to see what the wider issues and implications are for the veterans’ community.
I do not think I or anybody could guarantee to fix every problem for every person who has had a military career, but we need the ability to provide a forum where their voices can be heard and carried to a higher level in Canberra to ensure we get all the support we possibly can to support them in our community.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Mr Deputy Speaker, last Thursday I had the great pleasure of speaking at the Local Government Association annual general meeting. I thank the LGANT President and Alice Springs Mayor, Damien Ryan; the hosting Mayor, Lothar Siebert; and all the elected officials and their staff at the conference. I also thank my colleagues who attended the conference: the shadow minister for Local Government, Gerry McCarthy; Senator Nova Peris; federal member for Lingiari, Warren Snowdon; and our Labor voice for Arnhem, Selena Uibo.
I had an enjoyable dinner the night before with the participants, and spent as much time as I could overnight and the next day discussing the issues of importance to the Territory’s local government sector. I also acknowledge the member for Nelson, who was also in attendance. He loves a local government meeting.
I spoke on quite a few matters in my address, but tonight I wish to focus on the issue of local government for remote Territorians. I made it clear at this meeting that, if elected to government, Labor will return significant decision-making across the board to Indigenous people living in remote communities. We have already indicated that our housing policies will be tied to locals taking control of housing in their communities. The principle of trusting locals and local decision-making will underpin our policies and how I work with local government.
The framework of regional councils and local authorities provides for strong governance and economies of scale. It provides the capacity for locals to have a key decision-making role through local authorities. This is the bones of strong local government and it provides the opportunity for government to explore with regional councils and local authorities how we can work, with a view to making decisions as local as possible. We will also ensure that local authorities are a key point of local contact for our Cabinet ministers and other elected members of our government.
Recently I had the opportunity to sit in on a meeting of the Pirlangimpi Local Authority, and it was great to see the local authority in action, discussing and making decisions about grassroots issues of concern to the residents of that community on Melville Island. We will support the continuing and strengthening development of local authorities as a key voice to inform regional councils and our government. Where there is a need and broad support, we will support the development of new forums, with regional cultural authority to take the lead on crucial issues. That is about trusting locals and working with them to have clear involvement in how decisions are made. This is a clear statement from Labor that we will devolve decision-making to the type of government that locals desire.
I also thank the Tiwi Islanders for their generous and warm reception at the Tiwi grand final and a subsequent meeting I had with businesses and organisations on the Tiwi Islands, including the Tiwi Land Council.
The Tiwi grand final was a thriller; it was thrilling football as well as a thrilling score line. It was a great example of the fast-moving Tiwi Islands brand of football. It was a tight, competitive game with Muluwurri and the final victory went to the Tuyu Buffaloes.
It was also great to share in the carnival atmosphere on the day. Thanks to all the local organisations, especially the Tiwi Islands Regional Council members, who made it such a great day for the many visitors.
I was also pleased to return to the islands a couple of weeks later to continue my conversations with local organisations about how a future Labor government hopes to work with them to progress their development plans. This included meeting with a range of organisations like the Munupi Family Trust at Pirlangimpi, the strong women’s group at Bima Wear, the Outback Stores managers at the club bistro, the Bathurst Island Housing Association, workers at the Tiwi Islands Training and Employment Board, the Tiwi Land Council and others.
The Tiwi Land Council has a key role in leading development opportunities for the Tiwi Islands, and it was great to meet with its members again. I am very keen to ensure they see continuing progress of support from government, supporting the planning work they have been undertaking to build education and employment opportunities for Tiwi Islanders. The Tiwi Land Council members also impressed on me that sound environmental management is central to their planning objectives. We discussed how a Labor government will continue to support their land and sea management objectives, including greater recognition of their cultural understanding of land and marine resources and developing sustainable development opportunities.
My message to the Tiwi Land Council, as with any group I meet with, is that any government I lead wants to build on all the hard work they have done over recent years in progressing their local community plans. We have to keep moving forward and putting that work in.
I have enjoyed my work trips across the Territory and I continue to be energised by the commitment of local people to building strong communities, a work in progress I will support wherever I can.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to talk about three things, mainly relating to the Holtze correctional precinct, or prison. One concern in relation to the prison, which I have raised in this House a number of times, is the lack of a bus service to the prison.
Since I raised it a number of groups have also raised the issue, so I want to raise it again. My concern is that some see a bus service as something that is – ‘Oh dear, how sad. If your relations had not committed a crime they would not be in prison and you would not have to worry about a bus service.’ I do not see that as the correct process.
We should not punish the family and children because one of their parents has been locked up. It is a bit like the sins of the father being passed on to the children. That is a very old-fashioned idea. Not only is it old-fashioned, but it is a negative approach to something that should be used to help with the rehabilitation of prisoners. If a prisoner feels that when he leaves the prison he will not be wanted by his family, he is less likely to be rehabilitated and less likely to care.
We should ensure we have ways of helping the family to keep in contact with a family member who is in prison. One way to do that is a bus service.
I am not arguing the case that Correctional Services should put on a bus service. I am arguing the case that Port Phillip Prison in Melbourne is part of the public bus service.
The rural area, for a long time, has not had much of a service when it comes to public buses. Here is an opportunity to combine serving the rural community, the Palmerston community and others whilst providing a bus service for families to visit the prison. It is simple. There is a bus that goes to the 15 Mile community. It could take workers to the INPEX village – that is, people who work within the village. It could then take workers and families to the prison, which is just up the road. It could take people, especially from Palmerston, who would like to spend a day with their children at the Howard Springs Nature Park, which has a wonderful rock pool, beautiful facilities and is extremely popular. It would be even more popular if the government goes ahead with allowing the rope climbing concept that has been put forward to add to the attraction of the park. That bus could come back via Howard Springs and take local people back to Palmerston.
But no one is willing to try it. All I have received is negative, negative, negative. I ask the Minister for Correctional Services, the Minister for Indigenous Affairs and the Minister for Transport to please give this a trial. Do not be negative about something that you should be positive about. There are benefits for workers, families, prisoners and locals in Palmerston. Give it a go. We spend money on lots of other things. Here is something that would not cost a huge amount of money and we just receive a negative approach to it, which is something we should look at. I hope the ministers will think about it and do something about it.
I was flabbergasted to find out that prisoners cannot have animals anymore. There is some clause in the contract for this prison that does not allow prisoners to have animals. I cannot believe that. Animals have a great therapeutic way of helping people, whether they have mental illnesses, are sick or old.
I know from talking to people who look after kids on diversionary programs at Wongabilla how important it is to have horses. I supplied 20 chickens to Banyan House, the drug and alcohol rehabilitation centre. You should have seen the looks on the faces of those people who took them one by one out of the back of the vehicle, knowing they would have fresh eggs, and immediately having a relationship with that animal. It might only be a chook, but it is the same thing.
I visited the therapeutic centre for women in the Ohio Reformatory for Women. When I visited the prison they opened some of the cells and there were women looking after greyhounds. In the cellar of an old building which is part of that prison there was a woman on death row looking after animals that had been injured, the same as we do in the Northern Territory.
I am amazed that we have taken a really important part of prisoner rehabilitation out of our prison. I have not heard anything from the Minister for Correctional Services or the Minister for Infrastructure; can someone tell me why? It amazes me that animals can do a lot to turn a person’s life around, yet we seem to have said, ‘That is bad luck’. I do not know who has the private part of that relationship, whether it is Lendlease, but I would be going to Lendlease and saying that if part of the contract says that you cannot have animals, we need to take it out of the contract.
If it has something to do with health then I would say, ‘Give me a break’. How many of us have a dog on that back veranda or in the house? How many people look after horses? Do we worry about it for those people? It is urgently needed.
I visited the prison many times before it was opened. I visited it with the Public Accounts Committee, and I visited the Alice Springs prison, and something that is vastly different is the security. I am not against security, but someone rang me today and said they went to visit a prisoner today – they are a legal person – and it took eight attempts to get the eye identification working. I wonder if the design of that building is over the top. When we went to Alice Springs we did not put up with all that; we went through very quickly. Even in the old prison you still had to get checked, but it was much quicker than the new prison. I wonder if there should be a review of the security. Is it over secure? Is it unfriendly to people who visit the prison?
I am not saying you should not have security. By all means we need to make sure there are no drugs and contraband going through the prison, but maybe we have invented a prison that is not quite ‘Northern Territory’. It may be great for Alcatraz and Port Phillip Prison – maybe it is just me, but perhaps this needs to be looked at.
On the good side, a couple of months ago I visited boot camp facilities in Ross River in Alice Springs. I still need to do more work on reading a report that came to me today, but I was impressed by it. I was impressed by the people running it and the reports I am getting back about it. I think it is the wrong name; it is a name that Terry Mills, when he was Opposition Leader, brought back from the United States and South Australia. It could do with a more positive name because I do not think it is the same as the boot camp you see on TV.
From all reports, it is being run very successfully. A resident rang me today, from Howard River, who visited there the other day, said how great it was and asked whether the government could use it for more young people. I will read the report and put a report in my newsletter about it because it is positive. It is something the government should be congratulated for.
We need to see the outcomes. We can spend a lot of money on these facilities, but are we getting the outcomes and return for the money spent? I am interested in looking at the report. Even though I have some issues with the Holtze prison, I have some positive reports to make about the boot camp at Ross River.
Ms MOSS (Casuarina): Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to speak about a much-loved and respected principal in my electorate, Ms Sandy Cartwright from Alawa Primary School. Last week Sandy Cartwright was recognised in the NT Australian Council for Educational Leaders Awards as the Fellowship Award winner.
I have had the honour of being able to get very involved with all my local schools over the last 18 months and Alawa is no exception. It is driven by enthusiasm, passion and commitment, and shows innovation in many areas. It has strong leadership where good and new ideas are tried and put into action. You can see them everywhere you look.
A really good example of that at Alawa Primary School is the fact it was a winner at the NT Landcare Awards and the NT Natural Resource Management Awards last year. It was the junior Landcare winner for its garden program, which is their Alawa farm. It has goats, chickens and a range of things growing in it. The school runs the Stephanie Alexander kitchen program out of the Alawa farm. There is a frog pond, a native garden and active involvement from the students – practical education on the school grounds.
You can see the pride in the students in this program. They love showing people around the farm. They love showing off their knowledge of the environmental processes that occur there, and it is incredible to witness.
Ms Sandy Cartwright has been involved in education for 26 years across the Territory. Many people will be very familiar with her. I believe she started in Canberra in the 1980s and made her way to the Northern Territory, where she has taught Katherine School of the Air and at Clyde Fenton Primary School in Katherine. She has worked in the Department of Education and in a number of primary schools in the northern suburbs. She has fit some extra study in there as well, and has been the Principal of Alawa Primary School for the last three years.
The Fellowship Award at the Australian Council for Educational Leaders NT is described as a special category of membership award for those who have made an outstanding contribution over a period of time to the improvement of student and organisational outcomes. It was particularly focused on Sandy’s consistent work over a long period of time, but also on her work using great expert and Meaningful Maths. Anybody who has been to Alawa Primary School will have heard of Meaningful Maths as we talk a lot about it. We have also seen the introduction of Ally the Alawa learner, a frilled-neck lizard who is regularly at the school’s award events and assemblies to engage students in the material they are learning.
The award is a system-wide recognition and it is so deserved. The school at Alawa has great partnerships, and we see that all the time. It is consistently showing its work to other schools, principals and assistant principals, and opening up two-way communication. It is a learning and teaching school.
In 2008 Sandy established the Meaningful Maths network in Katherine, which has expanded across the Northern Territory. That is an example of the leadership Sandy Cartwright has shown in wanting to share knowledge to create supportive networks in education in the Northern Territory.
We are pleased to have her at Alawa. She is a massive fan of Keith Urban, Taylor Swift and Hugh Jackman, which is something the students are very aware of. One of the highlights of the last year was seeing some students get together on instruments to perform a Keith Urban song especially for Ms Cartwright – that is how much she is loved in the school – and then her guessing which Keith Urban song it was. It was quite amusing but a very special moment that showed how much respect she has from the students, school body and parents.
I put on the record this evening my appreciation of her and massive congratulations for the recognition of her hard work at Alawa Primary School.
I also wish to make comment on National Youth Week, as the Minister for Young Territorians did. What a fantastic week National Youth Week always is. We had the great honour of attending the Young Achiever Awards on Saturday night. A number of members were at the awards night. It is one of the favourite nights of the year for many of us because it celebrates of the contribution of young people in our community, which is immense.
One of the things I got out of that night is that we continually talk about young people as the leaders of tomorrow and the future. For me, the Young Achiever Awards truly demonstrates that young people are leaders of today. There are a number of young people who have excelled in their career aspirations, business, sport and the environment.
One winner, Amanda Lilleyman, was recognised for her work with migratory shore birds. Her work is discussed at my local Landcare group and I am sure in many other places. The work these young people are doing is vibrating through the community.
One of the greatest things about this year’s Young Achiever Awards was that Kate Axten, a young Indigenous teacher from Alice Springs, was the overall Young Achiever of the Year. She is a beautiful speaker who talked about the importance of education on the night, but also recognised the other people who had been nominated and the importance of all of them in building enthusiasm for education in our remote communities.
It sends a beautiful message that the Young Achiever of the Year in the Northern Territory is a young teacher. I think that it will open up a lot of opportunities for her; I hope it does, and that it will open up a conversation on the value of education and the importance of our young Indigenous educators in promoting that throughout the Northern Territory.
Pritika Desai delivered a beautiful speech on the night. I have been very lucky to watch Pritika, who was the National Youth Week Young Member for the last year, grow over a long period of time. ShoutOut!, the project she runs, has been created from the ground up, from an event that she ran as part of National Youth Week a couple of years ago to something that is now sponsored by the YMCA. She gets to involve many more people to spread the word on breaking down the stigma in mental health, and getting young people involved in service design and delivery. She has been very passionate about it and was a fabulous National Youth Week Young Member.
The Minister for Young Territorians touched on the fact we need to do some planning, noting that the federal funding will change for National Youth Week beyond 2017. I am really glad to hear that is being thought about because a range of things are connected to that. Will we have a national week that will be selected? How will the funding work? What will be the Northern Territory government’s continued commitment to the largest celebration of young people across Australia?
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I once again seek the Chief Minister’s support for telecommunications in the Barkly region, especially around the mobile phone tower that was constructed at the Barrow Creek roadhouse but does not provide mobile coverage to the majority of the population, which is well over 100 people living, working and conducting business at the Tara community and Neutral Junction Station.
Chief Minister, I thank you for your reply on 29 March 2016. The letter said:
Chief Minister, I will now quote from Mr Darren Disney from the office of Senator Hon Mitch Fifield, Minister for Communications, who talks about Telstra small cells in his reply to my correspondence to the minister:
Chief Minister, I welcome you to visit the Tara community and the Neutral Junction Station, where you will witness both localities within a radius of about 200 m of each other. In the middle of that circle is the supporting infrastructure with the community’s power, water and available land. Should the technology need to be based in each location – the cattle station and the community – that needs to be explored.
We are talking about a population of over 100 people living, working and conducting business in a locality 7 km from the Barrow Creek tower. It is a major deficit in planning and delivery. In your letter you talk about the communities and locations across the Northern Territory and the challenges in delivering. You said:
Chief Minister, it is interesting in your letter that you do not talk about the legacy of the program you delivered; however, Darren Disney from the office of Senator Mitch Fifield does. He said:
Our nomination is in there, Chief Minister, and we need your support. In regard to the existing infrastructure delivered by the CLP government to the Barrow Creek roadhouse, it is interesting that the chief of staff to Senator Mitch Fifield writes in this letter:
Chief Minister, I find that very strange. I encourage you to visit Tara, where under the Labor government’s previous national partnership agreement on housing 18 refurbishments are occurring. The community has just built a church. There is community power supplied to the cattle station and the Tara community under the agreement with the department’s community and essential services provision.
Teachers are residing at Neutral Junction Station and there is a school there. There is a health clinic at Tara community and nurses are living at Neutral Junction Station, which is very progressive not only in its cattle enterprise, but also a major hay-producing enterprise that is getting a lot of business and supporting a new management regime for finishing cattle, as well as supporting weaner development in the beef cattle industry.
Chief Minister, there is supporting infrastructure there and the majority of the area’s population is there, but you have decided to locate this tower at Barrow Creek and exclude the majority of the population. I seriously ask you to revisit this with the federal government. You mentioned in the House that you had access to about $70m to continue to roll out mobile technology across the Northern Territory. We need to retrofit this area; it is a priority. It is a serious embarrassment and the people at Tara community and Neutral Junction Station are continuing to lobby through me. I have also orchestrated a number of other initiatives and encouraged people to use those to lobby you as the Chief Minister, the federal government and our federal members.
Once again, this issue will continue. A few opportunities are presented in the correspondence. There is a bit of a conflict in the information supplied, but let us not worry about that. Let us get on with the business of retrofitting appropriate technology to deliver for these regional and remote Territorians who have plans, businesses, a school, a clinic and a community. We are talking about 7 km, by road, away from that mobile phone tower.
In my experiences travelling the vast distances of the Northern Territory, these installations normally have a footprint of around 20 km to 30 km, sometimes more. This geographic location precludes the Tara community and Neutral Junction Station. Senator Mitch Fifield said that he thinks there will be opportunities for small cell technology to deliver that retrofit. If that is the case, let us start to explore that and make sure we get this right before you go down the track of establishing any more. It is a very important issue about economic development, road safety and community safety.
Chief Minister, in your position as the first minister of the Northern Territory, you have the opportunity to deliver for our constituents across the length and breadth of the Northern Territory.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I speak about the township of Katherine. I have been visiting Katherine for pretty much my whole life. I can remember, as a child, we would always stop there on our travels up and down the Stuart Highway. I have fond memories of attending the Katherine swimming carnival as a teenager. It was held over a weekend and always lots of fun.
In more recent times I have delivered a number of water safety programs in the town, often spending the weekend with local residents and hearing their stories firsthand.
Last week I took the time to once again visit Katherine and meet with local business owners. The Territory Labor candidate for Katherine is a very energetic local resident who took the time to introduce me to many business owners so I could hear from them directly. Sandra shared her story and that of her community, something the local member for Katherine has been unable to do over the last few months in this Chamber.
Walking down the Stuart Highway main street, from Chambers Drive turn-off up to the United petrol station, we noticed numerous shopfronts had closed. Although this might seem fairly minor, in a small town such as Katherine it indicates that something is going on. It is a sign that they are reaching crisis point in this small town.
The government should be well aware of the issue; it has been raised in the Katherine Times but has been clearly ignored by the government.
The temporary beat locations, or POSIs, or whatever they are called this month, might have had some positive social impact in the initial starting months – I am told that the main street looked lovely and clean – but it has had a far more significant negative impact on local businesses, and not just the liquor retail businesses. Across this small community, the impact of this failing CLP policy is being felt.
The proprietors of the local caravan park reported that at the same time last year their laundromat bill was around $150 a week, but it has since dropped to around $25 a week, a significant drop. The Silver Screen Cafe has seen a drop in the number of meals served in comparison to last year. Staff there told me that they are serving 700 fewer meals per week. That is a significant reduction in turnover for a small business, which would have a significant impact of flow-on effects in such a small community.
Being a small town, people were happy to meet with me but they asked that I keep their businesses confidential. Some expressed that this failed government policy is having such a huge impact that they felt the story needs to be told and have allowed me to share their names in the House tonight.
The Katherine Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Market on Crawford Street, along with the Silver Screen Cafe on First Street, are businesses that do not have liquor licences but have been negatively affected by the TBLs, temporary beat locations, in Katherine. These are only a couple of the businesses, but it is indicative of what is happening to many others. The effect is far-reaching. From liquor outlets to corner sandwich shops to car sales, the government’s TBLs are impacting negatively on local businesses, which was clear with the local businesses I met with. It may be an unintended consequence of the TBLs to push people away from Katherine, but it is impacting on business dramatically.
Supporters like to say the TBLs have been great for Katherine; it has cleaned up the town, but at the same time this policy is destroying the businesses of this small Territory town. It has simply pushed the problem elsewhere, which my community in Nightcliff is feeling, as are the other communities in the Darwin region.
But today I am speaking about Katherine, which is something the local member has been unable to do in this House. Raised with me was the incredibly negative image tourists see when they walk into a retail outlet and see not one, but two police officers standing there to welcome everyone. What message does the CLP government think this is sending? The Banned Drinker Register, on the other hand, was simple and effective. It was Territory-wide, which was an important part of the program.
With the TBLs we have simply seen the issue pushed elsewhere. Local businesses feel that people have left town and are visiting Kununurra, Mount Isa and Darwin. They may have taken away some of the problems, but they have taken a huge part of Katherine’s business trade with them. There have been many claims that the TBLs have reduced crime in Katherine and that we have less antisocial behaviour, but I challenge the current member to come into the House and provide those numbers.
As I moved around the town there seemed to be less antisocial behaviour on the main street, but it only took a short walk to First Street, Second Street and Giles Street to see that issues have been pushed into certain areas. The TBLs may classify as a successful program for the current member, but not for the constituents I met with. Sandra, the Territory Labor candidate, explained the frustration of the local community of the TBL program, which is equally shared among those I met with. Sandra shared stories with me from a family that have had their property broken into five times in 18 months by people looking for alcohol to steal. Another resident has had their personal property broken into nine times since the middle of 2014. In fact, the last three break-ins happened over the Easter weekend. Their property was broken into over three consecutive nights. All that was taken was alcohol. This is only two stories, but there are many others.
People raised with me their strong concerns that the current local member for Katherine is saying fewer people are presenting to ED with alcohol-related injuries, but they also raised that it is common sense – this would be the logical case given the drop in numbers as people are leaving the community. I took the time to meet with residents, which the community feels the local member has not been able to do.
We are elected by communities to represent them. It is an honour to have a voice in this parliament. But the people in Katherine do not feel that the current member is doing that. Whilst the government might claim the TBLs are cleaning up the streets of Katherine, they are also cleaning up the businesses of Katherine by clearing them out of town. Every business owner I spoke with raised the negative effect on business of the TBLs. The government must consider that. You cannot simply ignore it or brush it under the carpet.
I sincerely thank the people who took the time away from their businesses to meet with me, even if it was not convenient for them to leave their businesses, but the TBLs and the impact on businesses are a far greater inconvenience.
It was important for me to hear directly from business owners in Katherine about the POSI TBLs and how they have affected businesses. I undertook that I would raise the issue in the next parliamentary sittings to highlight that the negative impact is far reaching and not isolated to licence holders. I have done that tonight.
It is important to me that I ensure the concerns of business owners in Katherine are being represented in the parliament, which their local member has been unable to do. This issue needs to be addressed because businesses have closed down or experienced a huge reduction in turnover and sales, and that has a flow-on effect through a small community. On the main street of Katherine there has been a reduction in antisocial behaviour, but residents feel there has not been a reduction in the community more broadly in crime, especially with property offences still being a strong issue.
Community members and business owners raised with me that they would like to see the BDR reintroduced. They said it should be introduced across the NT so problem drinkers do not move away to access alcohol. They simply cannot leave town to move to another area and take their business, family and friends with them. Another important point is the chance for rehabilitation. You need to be in your community with family and support.
Another important point was raised with me was that at the end of the day, police do not go through extensive and expensive training to stand in front of bottle shops all day. They are too important and need to be out and about on the beat. That is what the people in Katherine expressed to me.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am delighted to speak about an NT organisation based in Winnellie which is making an outstanding contribution to our community. Helping People Achieve, or HPA, as this organisation is commonly known, is the only registered Australian Disability Enterprise in Darwin.
HPA is a not-for-profit organisation providing supported employment and accommodation options for Territorians with a physical or mental challenge since 1963. HPA’s corporate mission is to assist people with disabilities to create a fulfilling everyday life and achieve their full potential. While its corporate vision is through employment and support, people with disabilities can develop confidence, independence and life skills to lead a fulfilled everyday life in a world where there are no barriers.
Besides adding productive endeavours to the Australian economy, HPA provides an opportunity for its employees to feel proud of and satisfied with their contributions within the workforce and society. As part of a nationwide network of Australian Disability Enterprises, HPA, like other Australian Disability Enterprises, supports people who have a disability to engage in a wide variety of work tasks. According to the federal government’s Department of Social Services, these work tasks include packaging, assembly, production, recycling, screen printing, plant, nursery, garden maintenance and landscaping, cleaning services, laundry services and food services.
HPA currently supports 68 people in its employment service and 40 in its accommodation service. Its aim is to support employees to move into open employment once core work skills are built. It does this through an annual employee action plan.
Through the successful operation of the three core enterprises, HPA continues to provide opportunity for the development of its greatest asset, the people. There are three businesses which HPA operates: Kokoda Industries; Ausdesigns; and Darwin Accommodation Services.
Kokoda is a medium-scale timber and steel fabrication workshop with an emphasis on made-to-order products. This business manufactures quality timber and metal products, including outdoor furniture, survey pegs, pallets, crates, sprinkler stands and trailers.
Ausdesigns designs and manufactures a wide range of conference bags, tableware, souvenirs and gifts made exclusively from local Indigenous fabric designed in the Northern Territory. HPA Ausdesigns also provides reliable and secure confidential document shredding; assembly work; industrial rags from T-shirts, singlets, cotton sheeting and towels; bank bags; mail-outs; and packing tasks.
HPA also has an accommodation service which operates within the Darwin and Palmerston area, called Darwin Accommodation Services. This service assists people who have a disability with low to moderate support needs. The services provided by DAS, Darwin Accommodation Services, focus on increasing independent living skills and community participation.
HPA Board of Directors, executive and staff have been working hard to develop the HPA brand to the next level and ensure its slogan is the main focus of what it wants to achieve by its organisation helping people achieve. HPA’s market has strengthened, with the community’s knowledge of HPA’s range of products and the service the organisation provides with its three different businesses.
HPA is a worthy nominee for a Telstra Business Award in 2016. Over the past year I have heard concerns from HPA as the federal Department of Defence advised this organisation that from 1 July 2015 there would be a change in Defence contract arrangements. Under the new arrangements, HPA would no longer have a direct contract with the Department of Defence to supply the wooden practice targets used by Defence forces to prepare for combat.
A prime contractor, Broadspectrum, would have responsibility for managing our major contract, which included supply of practice targets. At the same time the Department of Defence told HPA that it had given Broadspectrum HPA’s details and a strong endorsement of HPA as a supplier of practice targets, and that the Department of Defence anticipated that HPA would continue to supply practice targets under the new arrangement.
It is important to note that prior to the change in the Department of Defence contracted arrangements, HPA had been supplying practice targets directly to the Defence Force for the past 15 years. The practice target contract is very important to HPA as it represents 30% of HPA’s Kokoda Industries’ revenue and a quarter of the firm’s employment. Sales from HPA businesses are essential and fundamental to the organisation’s successful operation and outstanding social outcomes.
HPA was advised by Broadspectrum that the practice targets for the Defence Force are to be produced by a Broadspectrum wholly-owned subsidiary in Victoria and shipped to the Northern Territory. As there are few other payed employment opportunities for people with disabilities, the current HPA workers could most likely end up on social welfare benefits, and the viability of the Northern Territory’s key disability service and support organisation would be at risk.
The awarding of the Department of Defence practice target contract away from the Northern Territory’s sole Australian Disability Enterprise to an interstate-based subsidiary of a multinational company could create major social and employment impacts for people with disabilities in the Northern Territory.
Given the importance of HPA as the Northern Territory’s sole Australian Disability Enterprise and the potential for the negative public reaction and media towards the Department of Defence for such a decision, I wrote to the Minister of Defence, Senator Hon Marise Payne, seeking her support to advocate for HPA retaining the practice target contract.
Minister Payne has recently replied to my letter, saying:
Minister Payne further said in her letter:
Last week two representatives of Broadspectrum met with the CEO of HPA, Mr Tony Burns, at HPA’s Winnellie premises. According to Tony it was a constructive meeting regarding the Defence target work for HPA and for the exploring of other opportunities to work together, and that they look forward to working closely with the Broadspectrum team.
I am very hopeful that HPA and Broadspectrum will form a working relationship that will result in HPA and its employers continuing to make an outstanding contribution to our community.
I will also speak about the International Service Excellence Award to Kinetic IT. I congratulate the NTG’s ICT service centre, managed by Kinetic IT. Kinetic IT has been recognised internationally for its service excellence. The centre claimed the International Council of Customer Service Organizations’ 2015 International Service Excellence Award in the internal support services category. The awards, managed by the Customer Service Institute of America, recognise governments, organisations and individuals around the globe for their commitment to customer service excellence.
The judging criteria for the awards are based on the rigorous international customer service standards. This success shows the NT is performing at an international level and continually punching well above its weight in Australia in regard to service delivery in the ICT field. This is the sixth major customer service excellence award the government’s ICT service centre has won in the past three years. It has been the NT winner of the Customer Service Institute of Australia’s Service Excellence award in the Service Desk/Help Desk category every year since 2013, and claimed a national award in the same category in 2014 and 2015.
This continued success saw it nominated as a finalist and then go on to win the ICCSO award, recognised as the premier service award around the globe. The NT government’s ICT service centre offers a single point of contact for staff in government departments and agencies to access outsourced ICT services. It consistently delivers improved service response times and effective problem resolutions to over 20 000 public servants in the Territory.
The NT government’s ICT procurement strategy is based on a customer service and industry best-practice model. This is focused on continuous improvement in service delivery and responsiveness to all the public servants who rely on efficient ICT services to enable them to deliver their frontline services to the Territory community.
The NT government faces the challenge of providing services to people across more than 1.3 million square kilometres, including some very remote locations. The Chair of the International Service Excellence Awards, Christine Churchill, said:
Through digital advances the world is getting smaller, and successfully navigating the waters of customer experience is more challenging than ever. Each year service excellence is redefined by the customer and, I am told, the award winners must innovate to meet those ever-changing desires and expectations. The Northern Territory government is a very proud partner of Kinetic IT in delivering consistent award-winning service.
I visited the ICT service centre last year and congratulated them on a national award. A number of weeks ago it was a pleasure to meet with the same committed group of people, who won that national award and went on to win an international award. As a Territorian I stood there, very proud, looking at those people punching well above their weight across the world. To the team from Kinetic IT and DCIS, I say congratulations to you all on a very fine job.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to talk about an important matter that affects Territory women, as Territory Labor’s shadow minister for women.
I start by raising very serious concerns I have in relation to federal funding for the Northern Territory Working Women’s Centre. The centre has been informed its current funding will cease on 30 June 2016, and has received no commitment to any ongoing funding through its federal providers. This is an alarming and shameful state of affairs. Today I wrote to the federal Women’s minister, Michaelia Cash, and her colleagues, member for Solomon Natasha Griggs and Senator Nigel Scullion, to seek their commitment to ongoing federal funding for the Northern Territory Working Women’s Centre.
I call on these federal government members to stand up for Territory women, and I call on the Territory’s Minister for Women’s Policy, the member for Stuart, to also stand up for women and implore her federal colleagues to support the Northern Territory Working Women’s Centre and commit to funding beyond 30 June. Around two-thirds of the funds come from the federal government. The remaining one-third comes from the NT government, but I do not know if a commitment has been made for continuing funding beyond 30 June at the Territory level.
The Northern Territory Working Women’s Centre has provided a professional specialist advisory and advocacy service to women with work issues in the NT since 1994. I attended a wonderful celebration here in 2014, hosted by Madam Speaker, to mark its 20th anniversary.
The Northern Territory Working Women’s Centre is based in Woods Street in Darwin, but in more recent years an office has opened in Alice Springs. I am familiar with both offices, having visited them from time to time, and I understand the good work they do. I pay tribute to the extraordinary work of the women who work there, who have no job security beyond 30 June. I can assure you that is the last thing on their minds; they are more interested in the women they provide a service to.
With limited resources, the Northern Territory Working Women’s Centre also endeavours to provide an outreach service to remote women, such as those I represent in remote homelands and communities of northeast Arnhem Land. I will quote from information provided by the Northern Territory Working Women’s Centre which outlines what it does:
The ministers for women at both the federal and Territory level are surely well aware of the issues that working women continue to experience, which impact on their ability to participate in the workforce. These issues include – I quote again from the Northern Territory Working Women’s Centre website:
This service is too important for Territory women to let it fall over for want of funding.
I do not have much faith in the Turnbull-led government to support women. To be honest, the CLP’s track record on women speaks for itself on how it approaches women’s issues. Four out of six women have left the CLP government benches since it came to power, leaving it as a minority government, and an unpopular one at that.
In regard to the fate of the Northern Territory Working Women’s Centre, I think this critical organisation might have received a greater level of support if there had been greater connectivity between government, women and the various organisations and stakeholders, including the NGO sector, which is where the Northern Territory Working Women’s Centre sits.
If it were underpinned by a women’s consultative group or a women’s round table – I have had this very discussion with the Working Women’s Centre and I will be the first to admit that, under the former government, such an important consultative group did not receive the attention it deserved and was allowed to decline.
As Territory Labor’s shadow minister for Women’s Policy, I can say that if returned to government, Labor would elevate Women’s Policy to the Department of the Chief Minister. We would support and resource a women’s consultative group, by whatever name it might have, to inform government policy and direction on the needs of women and girls, address and advance gender equality, and tackle domestic and family violence amongst other things.
Unfortunately, the current CLP government took three-and-a-half years to announce, on 12 February this year, that it would form a women’s consultative council, at which time it called for nominations. The nominations closed on 26 February and we are still to hear, nearly two months later, who the 12 women on that council are, of which five will be appointed by the minister and seven through an expression of interest nomination process.
I am sure this consultative council, when it is formed, will be full of good, hard-working women who will be up to the task. I am sure that announcement will come from the minister very soon. But it comes disappointingly late in the term of this government, four months out from an election and less than that to a caretaker period.
It hardly gives a newly-formed women’s consultative council time to ramp up before an election. I appreciate that the Minister for Women’s Policy is the only woman in Cabinet; she has a heavy workload and is surrounded by male colleagues. Unfortunately, women’s policy matters have taken a back seat.
Tonight my intention is to raise awareness about the federal government’s decision to allow the Northern Territory Working Women’s Centre to take a back seat. The Turnbull government does not see this important organisation as a priority, with the decision to not renew its funding when the agreement expires on 30 June.
Let us see the member for Solomon, Natasha Griggs, stand up for Territory women. Let us see Senator Nigel Scullion stand up for women. Let us see the member for Stuart, the Territory’s Women’s Policy minister, lead the charge from Darwin to Canberra and fight for Territory women.
On a postscript to that, the charge has already been well and truly instigated and led by the Northern Territory Working Women’s Centre. I have just been on its website and seen that its electronic petition is just shy of 1000 petitioners signing in less than 24 hours. I place on the record a comment from its website. It says:
That is indeed good news. I also note that in the Senate this afternoon a discussion for funding for Working Women’s Centres has been discussed. Senator Claire Moore, for Labor, has spoken on this issue and raised a question.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I place this very important matter about funding and supporting the NT Working Women’s Centre before this parliament and hope there is a positive outcome.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Chamber Robes
Chamber Robes
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I am not wearing my robes today, and neither are the Clerks, because my robe is not where it should have been. It will be back tomorrow.
MESSAGE FROM ADMINISTRATOR
Message No 32
Message No 32
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, pursuant to Standing Order 167, I advise that I have received Message No 32 from His Honour the Administrator notifying assent to the bills passed at the March 2016 sittings of the Assembly. The message is dated 11 April 2016.
WITHDRAW MOTION OF DISALLOWANCE
Disallowance of Subordinate Legislation
Disallowance of Subordinate Legislation
Mr BARRETT (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I advise that Regulation 10 of the Ports Management Regulations No 13 of 2015 was repealed at the executive council meeting of 9 March 2016. I therefore withdraw the proposed motion of disallowance and table the correspondence from the Minister for Transport confirming the repeal.
RED TAPE REDUCTION (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 157)
(Serial 157)
Continued from 16 March 2016.
Mr GUNNER (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, Labor supports this bill and we thank the public servants for their hard work over 12 months. They went into extensive detail to make sure we had this omnibus bill which streamlines the registration process.
Looking through the bill, the second reading and the explanatory memorandum reminded me a lot of when I was shadow Attorney-General. It is the kind of the work the Attorney-General introduces regularly, where hard work has been done by the department to fix things and establish a sensible series of reforms for consideration. As I did with those bills, I read the second reading to see how long the minister spoke for in explaining this series of very small, sensible reforms. It is amazing how 12 months of hard work can be reduced to two pages of speech notes. A lot of hard work has to go into a bill like this.
The bill makes a number of changes, perhaps most critical is the extension of how long you can have a term of licence or registration from 12 months to three or five years. We can all understand the frustration of having to go in every 12 months. This takes that frustration and work away. We are also changing the common expiry date. It was not simply about doing the work every 12 months; everyone was doing all the work at once. By changing that and having a sensible transition process in place, moving the common expiry date to a one-, three- or five-year option, you are reducing work for the business as well as spreading out the workload that falls onto public servants. It is a very sensible reform which affects people such as property agents, commercial and private agents, auctioneers, tobacco retailers and wholesalers of liquor.
We should not underestimate the kind of work that has to go into this from the public service to get the detail right, find the problems, come up with solutions and comb through bills to pull it all together.
There are also a couple of other reforms – extending the term of a bore construction permit from 12 months to two years. There are around 400 to 480 permits issued per year and we are changing those terms from 12 months to two years, but you get a choice. You may still want a 12-month licence term and there may be sensible reasons for wanting to do that work every 12 months, but let us give people the choice and take away the pressure if we can.
It is good to see this come forward as an omnibus looking at a range of sectors and dealing with them all at once. I have, essentially, summarised the bill and the minister’s two pages of speaking notes. They are good, sensible reforms which Labor supports. These are the types of bills that governments of all stripes introduce and oppositions of all stripes support.
Madam Speaker, I support this bill. I thank the officials who worked on it and thought through the transitional processes, because that is important. You cannot make this change overnight; you need some transitional arrangements in place that work for all parties in both the public service and private sector. From our briefing and the conversations I have had, we understand that those processes are good. We support this bill and commend the minister for bringing it to the House.
Mr BARRETT (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I also support this bill and thank staff in the Department of Business for their hard work, especially the red tape reduction task force that was set up to work on ways to improve the efficiency of the public sector in the way these things are handled.
From a business perspective it is interesting. We always think government is not a corporation, in the sense that corporations look to maximise returns to shareholders. The government should also strive for efficiency because our remit is to make the best possible use of taxpayer funds. In relation to that, we like to see assessments of processes, structures and work flows, innovation and technology being incorporated into processes as it becomes available to increase efficiency, thereby allowing the public service to maximise service for taxpayer funds.
With that in mind, having run through some of the significant reforms that have occurred, allowing high-risk work licences and permits granted in other jurisdictions to be recognised in the Territory is a very big step forward.
Having worked on a worksite where high-risk licences were required, it was always an issue when people came from other states. They were eminently qualified for the position and very good at their job, but there were issues with their licences. I remember being busy on the docks, and the company I worked for needed to bring in some extra crane operators, who were company employees. They shifted a few to Darwin from a port that was not as busy for a short period of time while there was a lot of work on. It was a struggle for those guys because the company had to go through many processes to make sure those employees were licensed and able to use the crane.
Allowing the high-risk work licences to be transferred from one state to another in a seamless way made it a lot easier to get the red tape work done in time, particularly when it was busy. Things like that improve the efficiency of businesses and mean they can offer a better service to their clients, improving the structure of how the economy is working.
That is a great example of one change that created a material effect on the way business was done on the ground and how much we could do at our end, in the public sector.
Broadening the range of workers eligible for undertaking major inspections of crane and amusement devices means that when there is a lot of work to be done in a short space of time, there is no backlog. Machines still cost money when they sit idle. The faster you can get the machine working the faster the services can be provided, and business can keep operating. Being able to certify and inspect that things are in good working order is very important for business.
Allowing businesses to use their own plan and structure design verifiers rather than independent verifiers, which are hard to find, is important for the same reason. Companies having their own plan, and structure verifiers who can certify the machine is ready to go, means there is no bottleneck in trying to find somebody who is isolated from the business structure to do it.
The NTG website’s 24-hour online lodgement and tracking of invoices by suppliers to government is important because cash flow is one of the two most important things in operating a business, the other being the asset and liability register. People say it is hard to keep operating and doing business. They find themselves in trouble when the systems that organise payment for their work are slow, so they run into cash flow problems. Elevating this has made business a lot simpler in the Northern Territory and improves the things on the ground for people who need to get work done.
Waiting times for various licences in business centres have been dropped. Faster decision-making frameworks for liquor, gaming and other licences help these processes. Tourism NT’s accreditation policy of moving to preferential treatment instead of a mandatory brace arrangement provides operators the opportunity to be involved in Tourism NT’s marketing and other activities.
We have been able to look at ways for the community and businesses to save. Removal of light vehicle registration stickers is simple and will save business and the community about $2.4m and 60 000 hours.
Simplified approval processes for unit titling for subdivision will save applicants two weeks on average. There have been savings to the business community’s time at the Motor Vehicle Registry by providing vehicle registration renewal applications online, on the MVR app or at an Australia Post office. The MVR app is fantastic. Having the app means you can always be aware of your car’s registration status. I have seen people use the app to check if other cars are registered. It is important for people, especially those in business, to keep abreast of where there vehicles are at. They can check in real time online without going to an MVR or navigating a tricky website. This simple introduction of a technological solution to an issue has allowed businesses to save money. Mums and dads who are trying to get through the working week – if they do not have to go to MVR and sit in line with others, it saves them time and they can do more important things that are important to their family structure.
A streamlined application process for high-risk work licences is important. Keeping the time between getting your qualification and getting your licence as minimal as possible is important for workers who want to start work and get paid in jobs they are accredited to do. The process saved businesses and individuals 58 460 days across all the businesses in the Territory. That is a solid saving.
InvoiceNTG – of the 550 000 invoices submitted to government, the online lodgement saves time and money. The reduced NT Build levy rate from 0.3% to 0.1% and raising the levy threshold to one million has saved around $2m.
Simplified application processes for dangerous goods driver’s licences saved over 200 applicants the $12 application fee and time at MVR. One of the first things I did as a member of parliament – minister Styles will probably remember this less than fondly – was sit at MVR and take photos of how many people had happy faces sitting in the waiting room. I sent that picture to him and asked if there was a way we could streamline the process and make it better.
I am happy that so much work has gone into this. I thank the people at the Motor Vehicle Registry and in the Department of Transport for the work they have done in streamlining this. People have better things to do than sit in line at places like Motor Vehicle Registry for hours, waiting for various types of applications to be processed.
I am glad they have taken on new initiatives, such as the push-button gate, so you know which counter you are supposed to go to. You get a number, so instead of standing in line you can wait in a comfy chair. Things like that make the customer service experience in the Motor Vehicle Registry better. It means those waiting in line are doing so with a better attitude, which means our staff on the front line are dealing with happier customers, which makes the working environment better. Sometimes I feel sorry for people on the front line, particularly where there are bottlenecks and people get grumpy. If we can make this process better it makes their work life better as well.
Streamlined land clearing application processes can save up to three months. A concurrent process for rezoning and development applications can save up to three months in the approval process. Building approvals are now online, saving over 7800 applicants time and money. Moving things into a paperless system, which technology has made possible, allows us to become more efficient. It means we can get through more work in less time. That is important for developers, for people who want to get into their small house sooner and for businesses that want to get into their building and get on with it.
There is faster processing of business-related licences, and they are now issued over the counter at the Territory Business Centre. This has saved about 800 days. I remember being on the plane talking to a business owner about the myriad of licences they had to operate a highway house that had accommodation. They needed separate licences for seafood, their kitchen, alcohol, selling cigarettes, and accommodation, and they all had different expiry dates and terms. There were people coming out at different times to check on the licence renewal to make sure they were complying with all the regulations within that licence.
It was interesting talking to that person, who said, ‘We could align these processes so people can apply for multiple licences at the same time. One person from the department who understands all those regulations can come out and do it all at once, and they do not need to see them again for a set period of time, be it one, two or three years, whatever is decided.’
I remember wondering at the time how much money the Northern Territory government expends and how many times people have to fly – the member for Nhulunbuy would be happy to know this person lived in Nhulunbuy – over the course of a year for those five or six sets of licences they require to operate their business. Would it not be simpler and a better use of taxpayers’ money if one person went over there and knocked it over in one hit?
This kind of thinking, which brings this into line, makes a difference to people on the ground who are running businesses. It means their interaction with government is less onerous. It means they do not resent government employee visits and they can do what they do best and get on with business.
The government’s job is to facilitate and sometimes regulate business to ensure business is operating in a triple bottom-line, positive manner. We need to find ways businesses can do things better in the complex structure of the way they interact with government.
Non-partial use permits extended from annual permits for up to 30 years saves 40 hours for each application every year. When people on the land, trying to manage properties and what they are doing, have to waste a week going through the application process, it cuts into their productivity. Government should not reduce the productivity of business because of red tape; it should find ways to regulate but improve the productivity of business.
A review of red tape for the construction and development sector and the automotive industry has been complemented with recommendations approved for implementation. Sector reviews have commenced for the tourism and NGO sectors. We have a long way to go in this space. Talking to tourism operators in the Territory – some of them have fantastic ideas of how government can work with businesses and tie them together to make them work better.
Through networking events like October Business Month we can see that businesses are very keen to work together in the Northern Territory, and look at synergies and ways they can join together to maximise each other’s productivity. That is a great environment. It is a healthy environment for business and the community when people want to work with each other.
I looked at this tourism operator and the ideas they had around centralising touchscreen-type things. Businesses like hotels could bring in a myriad of tourism operators where people could then, in any language, instead of trying to pick up a brochure and navigate it, sit at a screen and say, ‘What do I want to do today?’ It might say, ‘What is on today?’, and you can push that on the screen. If they are interested in seeing a crocodile they push the crocodile so only tourism information that relates to that will display. They can choose what business they want to visit depending on what they want.
That is easier than trolling through a wall of brochures that cost a lot in printing and are inefficient, difficult to manage and very time consuming for Tourism NT. A system that builds efficiencies within the tourism market means government in support of this can help the experience of tourists coming into the Northern Territory to quickly and efficiently access what they want to access in the way of tourism. It means a lot of space is saved in the lobbies of hotels and motels that would have been taken up by a myriad of brochures. People can read in their own language and see pictures and movies of what experience they are likely to have on a tour.
This makes tourism a lot more attractive. People can go home and say, ‘I went to Darwin, Katherine, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs or Nhulunbuy and I was at the hotel. It was fantastic to be able to see quickly what I could do in the area, what was on that day, what festivals were happening and what attractions there were – how I could maximise my trip and make my tour as fun and appropriate as possible.’
That is the sort of thinking our government needs, when looking forward, to make sure we diversify our economy and support businesses that operate in the Northern Territory. I support this from an efficiency perspective with an economics background to see the Department of Business continue to work on red tape reduction. This government has a good track record of supporting local business through some trying times which involved some serious headwinds. This government is putting these things in place to make business easier.
Madam Speaker, I support this bill.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for introducing this, and the member for Blain for his comments. I wish I had some of his background in relation to savings. It would have made this a better debate if we had some of that before us today. However, I laugh when he says we are in a paperless society.
Mr Barrett: Except in parliament.
Mr WOOD: No, the government says, ‘Here’s the form; you print it.’ Those out there cop the paper bills because the government does not print; it sends it by e-mail and we have to print it.
We need to be careful when we talk about red tape that it does not become a stigma. Red tape is the name it has been given, which presumes business is being held back by unnecessary regulation. That may be the case, and I thank the minister for the changes today, which I support. Red tape is also another way of saying we need to make sure businesses operate correctly and that consumers and the environment are protected. We have to ensure, in the process of being so-called efficient, we do not become deficient in the responsibility government has towards consumers and the environment. We do not want to bandy this around as if all red tape is bad.
The member for Blain raised some interesting issues, one being that subdivision applications are now much quicker. Before going to the Development Consent Authority you have 14 days to comment and that application is normally before the DCA fairly quickly. However, the danger of reducing time for comment is that people may not have the time to comment because they do other things in their life besides look at planning notices. I look at them, but that is part of my job. Others who may be busy working do not always have time to comment on matters which may affect them. We need to ensure we have that balance.
The member for Blain also mentioned the car stickers and how the apps are fantastic, but not everyone – especially older people – has apps. Sometimes that is forgotten. Yes, it is the modern way to do things. You hop on the website and everything will be fine. I was on the website the other day, looking for an application to renew a licence. It was not for me; it was for someone else. I thought, ‘Why doesn’t this have an ID number?’ Then I realised the person had to get a photograph taken. But it was not easy to see and I kept banging away on the form that came up on the screen. Thankfully my daughter told me that if I had read the bottom of the form I would have seen that I could not do it that way because a photograph was needed. I tried to do it via the website, but obviously there are things that cannot be done via that process. It has helped many people though.
The only complaint I receive is that MVR closes at 4 pm, but I think I have written to the minister about that, and it is not open on Saturday morning. Even closing at 5 pm on Friday would be a benefit. There are those who do not use the online processes and those who work and do not have a chance to visit MVR during normal working hours. I sometimes think we do not fit in very well with those people. We have hours set aside for members of the public service who operate MVR, but they are serving people who do not always have the chance to go there during office hours. I know the argument will be that they can do it online, which is good, but there are people who still, for whatever reason – it might be having a licence renewed with a photograph or a complicated matter than needs personal attention rather than being done online. We need to make sure in cutting red tape that we do not also cut service.
If we are cutting red tape and making business more efficient, is there a reduction in the cost to government? Are there fewer people working for the public service now there is not as much need for people because much of the work is being done online? Has there been a complementary reduction in cost to government? I heard the figures, but are they paper figures or real ones? Are we still employing 10 people to do the job that was done before when the only difference is there is less paperwork? I am interested to know whether those evaluations have been done, because when the government says it is reducing red tape we need to see the benefits to government as well.
I was not sure the member for Blain was talking about changes to the non-pastoral activity on pastoral properties. I would have thought, as the norm for pastoral properties is to run cattle, any non-pastoral activity would require a reasonable amount of processing as a range of issues would need to be looked at. I was unaware of what changes the government has introduced to make the process more efficient. We must ensure not only are there savings to the business, but also protection of the environment if those changes to the Pastoral Land Act affect the environment.
The member for Blain also mentioned businesses having multiple licences that need to be checked. I fully understand what he is talking about and I sympathise, but how it would work in practice is complicated. If you look at the premises from a gambling perspective, there might be the liquor inspector, a health inspector and other inspectors. I do not know how you would have a multi-licence. Obviously those people come from different departments. Whilst the member for Blain’s intent to reduce the number of times someone has to visit, fill out forms and inspect premises is good – if that could be done by one person it would be better – how that would work from the government’s perspective, I am not sure. If you are required to get inspections from different departments, how would you combine that so there was only one inspection covering all the requirements? It is a good idea in theory, but how it will work in practice, I am not sure.
I am happy to support this amendment – another amendment has ended up on the desk, but I am not sure what that is about or whether it is important. It was brought to my attention that in the Auctioneers Act under section 8 it says:
- Appeal to Local Court where Minister refuses or fails to grant auctioneer’s licence
…
… the applicant may appeal to the Local Court.
It was asked at the briefing as to why that is to do with NTCAT and why it has not changed. I am interested to know – when we are talking about reducing red tape, there was an opportunity to bring that into line with other appeals to go through NTCAT. I presume the reason we are making NTCAT the place to take these appeals is to make things more efficient. It is only a minor thing and I suppose it can be picked up at a later stage. Considering the government was amending the Auctioneers Act I thought this would be a good opportunity to change that section of the act so the applicant may appeal to the NTCAT instead of the Local Court.
I support what you are trying to do, minister. It is important. It is not so much about red tape; it is about making sure the government operates in an efficient way and is not duplicating its processes. It is about making sure businesses are not being asked to do things that could be done in a simpler way without reducing the requirements of business to do things correctly and make sure the consumer and the environment are protected. It highlights that there is always a need for government to become more efficient by looking at its processes. Does it have processes that could improve efficiency? To some extent government is a business. Does it look at internal red tape? How long does it take within a department to look at an application? How long does it take for a letter to go from A to B? When a consumer writes to the government, how long does it take to go to the minister and be responded to?
I know those issues have been around for a long time, but it is important that government looks at whether internal red tape is in need of review so the average Territorian is confident that when dealing with the government it does not take longer than necessary to look at an issue.
With red tape reduction the balance must be to make sure it does not reduce the rights of the consumer and remove protection of the environment. They are not the only things to be looked at, but they must be protected by the red tape needed to make sure government is doing the right thing by the consumer and the environment.
Mr CHANDLER (Education): Madam Speaker, I support this bill. When we came to government just over three-and-a-half years ago there was an enormous amount of red tape built into the way the NT government worked every day. It has taken a long time to get to the bottom of the issue of red tape because not every issue you face happens every day. You could be months into a job before you realise red tape has caused a hold up.
Legislation and government processes need to pass the common sense test. Things have been changed by this government that did not stack up. They did not pass the common sense test.
Labor is exceptionally good at creating bureaucracy. I do not think it is lost on many people that we choose to describe bureaucracy as red tape. Red is often the colour associated with the Labor Party, and it should be; a lot of red tape has been created over the years by Labor governments not only in the Northern Territory, but around the country.
As the member for Nelson pointed out, not all red tape or process is something we should shy away from. In fact, much of it is needed. We must ensure that our environment is protected and that Australian standards are followed, and that anybody interacting with government follows a due process. No one doubts that.
When the unnecessary duplication of bureaucracy and red tape is introduced, you start to question it. Many things we have found, on this side of the House, are just that. They are duplications of bureaucracy that are not needed and have, in many cases, held up the Northern Territory from becoming the future Territory, or possible state, that it could be, at least in the time frame it is taking to develop the Territory. Red tape often gets in the way of good development, and prevents things occurring that would benefit many Territorians into the future.
This bill supports the government’s commitment to making it easier and simpler to do business in the Northern Territory. We are reducing unnecessary paperwork by extending terms, prefilling renewal forms, placing transactions online and reducing reporting requirements.
The member for Nelson spoke about MVR. I congratulate the Department of Transport for many of the reforms made at MVR which have sped up processes by introducing new programs. For instance, years ago many people complained about how long they had to wait at the test sheds on Goyder Road. Today you can go online and make a booking so you have a prearranged time. That has tremendously reduced the time that people have to wait. We have received feedback about that program that it is winning people over, hands down. No longer do you have to wait for hours, in some cases slowly moving your vehicle, stopping and starting, and waiting to get to the test shed. You can call or go online, make a booking and turn up at your designated time.
The amendments in this bill will reduce compliance costs for over 500 real estate agents across the Northern Territory; 150 commercial and private agents, which include inquiry agents; private investigators; debt collectors and bailiffs; 105 auctioneers; 30 liquor wholesalers; and 300 businesses in the retail, tourism and hospitality sectors in relation to the tobacco retail licence.
In my portfolios we are implementing a range of reforms. Education recently implemented online teacher registration renewal, streamlining registration for approximately 3000 teachers across the Northern Territory. In Transport, almost 30 initiatives are already implemented, such as vehicle registration checks, which are now only required every five years, 10 years and then annually. The introduction of these changes, along with the new 10-year driver’s licences, has allowed more Territorians to make these transactions online or over the phone without having to visit the MVR office and wait in line, something we all have had to do. I recently read somewhere that there was a quantum figure for the amount of time people will spend in queues in their lifetime and it is surprising to know how much time that is. Much of that time I would much prefer sleeping, but it is probably not a good idea to sleep in a queue because you will have someone jump in. However, I digress.
In MVR reforms, in addition to the one-, two- and five-year licence terms, we have extended driver’s licences to 10 years. Extending light vehicle registration inspections from five years and every year thereafter to five years, 10 years and every year thereafter frees up much time people would have spent in queues – especially from a safety point of view. More MVR transactions have been placed online so people from businesses do not have to wait in line at MVR, as I have described. MVR Quick Pay allows driver’s licences and vehicle registrations to be renewed online.
Commercial passenger vehicle reform includes removing requirements for a business to have a courtesy vehicle licence.
The member for Nelson rightly pointed out that not everyone has a computer, although that gap is reducing significantly every year. In fact, it is not often these days that you will find a young person who does not have a smart phone, tablet or computer, or at least access to one. Whilst the member for Nelson is correct that there is an element of society living in environments that make it more difficult to access online facilities, the system today is far better than what it was a few years ago. People have access today.
MVR registration renewal is one aspect where things have improved dramatically. We always relied on a renewal notice to be sent out about six weeks before your registration was due. That has not changed; renewal notices can still be sent out to people six weeks prior to their registration being due for renewal, but we have improved the process to enable smarter technologies to allow people access to more information. It is less likely for renewal such as registration to slip through the gaps, which some people suggest happened previously.
In regard to infrastructure, we have simplified the tender assessment process by updating the conditions of tendering to enable the Department of Infrastructure to fast-track assessments through shortlisting compliant Tier 3, 4 and 5 tenders. In a civil contracts construction area, work zone traffic management training and permits to work in the road reserve were mapped as a part of the Department of Business process relating to red tape reduction in March 2015. Since that time the Traffic Management Association has formed the Northern Territory branch, which has allowed a forum to improve interactions with government. There is a national agenda in relation to the harmonisation of traffic management training in which the Northern Territory is participating.
Red tape is not always about removing regulatory requirements; it can involve adding regulatory certainty, which is an important fact. It has provided greater regulatory certainty for developers with the release of the development of guidelines for Northern Territory controlled roads, and when construction and development is likely to have an impact on the road network the guidelines provide clarity for developers around their obligations and detail on how approval is granted.
Regulatory certainty for port management, with port management acts and regulations, supports private investment and major projects. The regulatory certainty reduces uncertainty for investors and facilitates investment in the Territory while maintaining protections for consumers, the community and the environment. They were articulated well by the member for Nelson. There will always be a level of regulatory burden on anybody who wants to work with government, whether it is a developer, an investor or someone starting a small business. There will always be a level of regulatory requirements.
We should be working as hard as we possibly can to ensure that process is as streamlined as possible and is not unnecessarily duplicated. My philosophy when it comes to government is that it should not be in business, but should facilitate business. The more we can facilitate business and stimulate the economy the more new jobs we create. Labor thinks the only way to provide jobs is to grow a bureaucracy. We inherited a government full of people in departments looking for ways to ensure the continuation of their jobs. That, unfortunately, in many cases led to over-duplication of bureaucracy, which this government has worked extremely hard to deal with.
We need a balanced regulatory framework; that is essential. This government is committed to red tape reduction. Any way that the government can save Territorians time on compliance should be done. Reducing administration requirements on businesses, individuals and non-government organisations allows more time to focus on productivity, and that is the key. Productivity in business and government can only occur when our processes are as streamlined as possible.
We should not criticise or make fun of red tape because, as the member for Nelson said, there will always be a level of red tape. We have to ensure compliance in certain areas, whether that is looking at the good work this government has attempted to do over the last few years, even on fracking – ensuring the regulations around fracking in the Territory are strengthened and become world class.
As a former minister for the Environment I was very active to ensure that we improved on where we came from. Together with the member for Katherine I had the privilege, also the sadness, to see some of the many legacy mines left in the Territory – Redbank comes to mind, which we visited several years ago. We saw what can happen when you do not have the right regulatory framework around mining. This government is changing that.
If you look at the wrecking ball approach the Labor opposition wants to take to our economy, and what it wants to introduce, including a moratorium on fracking, you will see it is nothing more than red tape. We are trying to improve the regulatory framework and make it as strong as we can, in fact, make it world class so that anybody who comes to the Northern Territory and wants to utilise the natural resources here can do so in an environment that has world’s best practice. But what have we come from? We have come from a Labor government that sat on this side of the House for nearly 12 years and did little in that space. In fact, it opened up the Territory to mining applications without regard for improving the regulations. The regulations were overseen by very intelligent and scientific minds, and they told Labor they were second-rate and not up to standard.
It has taken this Country Liberal government to look at that space very closely. Dr Hawke was commissioned by this government. I tell you, without fear or favour, it was a double-edged sword for this government to do that, because on setting the terms of reference – and me being the former Environment minister and partly responsible for Dr Hawke being commissioned by this government – we did not know what he would find or what the outcome would be.
Some people might think that governments set up reports and investigations from time to time knowing what the outcome will be. In this case we were not certain. It was a double-edged sword to go to someone as reputable as Dr Hawke and have him provide us with a report on how fracking was conducted in the Northern Territory, and then come up with his blueprint for the way forward.
Our peers suggest that the regulatory framework to build in the Northern Territory is world-class and world’s best practice – far better than we have ever had before – but the Labor opposition wants to introduce a moratorium, which is nothing more than red tape. We are not sure how long that moratorium will be for. There has been no time frame put around it. We have had indications of five years, and then the candidate for Blain suggested on radio that it was two years. We are not even sure. What kind of uncertainty does that provide to the business world creating jobs for Territorians?
That is a level of red tape, yet the Labor opposition says it stands for jobs in the Northern Territory. Like a wrecking ball, the Leader of the Opposition – I am not sure if he is really leading the party because there are diverse views on that side. It consists of ministers from the former Labor government, such as the member for Karama, an ex-Labor minister and member, who was responsible when they were in government for making many of the rules and regulations, or lack of, around fracking, but approving areas across the Territory to be licensed for fracking. All of a sudden there is this big change of face. We are trying to ensure any regulations we introduce are effective and improve on where we have come from. They are regulations that, as part of a government in their time, allowed fracking to occur.
We know it is important but the future is in renewables. But we have to get there and we are investing in renewables. At the same time I argue that looking at the oil age, then the gas age, it is probably hydrogen together with other renewables like solar which are the stepping stones. Gas, whilst not perfect, is far better than the oil age. The opposition is so adamant that it wants to prevent jobs in the Territory and industry growth.
The Chief Minister has worked damn hard to ensure that any royalties out of fracking go into education. That is something I stand behind him on and am impressed by. The Labor opposition wants to put all that at risk. There will be more to come on that.
Those members sat in government for nearly 12 years, allowed fracking to occur in the Northern Territory and approved fracking licensing. They were very much behind the oil and gas industry when they were in government. Now that they are in opposition and it becomes a populist argument, they are all against it. They are against INPEX and what it does onshore. They are against onshore fracking of gas, which has occurred for years. They are trying to tie into the public argument that fracking in the Northern Territory is somehow the same as coal seam gas fracking in Queensland. It is so much different.
They allowed this to occur under their watch without improving regulations, but they criticise this government for trying to improve the regulations around that industry.
Territorians will have a very clear decision to make come August this year. They can choose a future government that is nothing but a wrecking ball on our economy, business and what could secure the Northern Territory for years to come, or they could choose a first-term government that has done some amazing things in a very short period of time to right the wrongs of the past and rebalance things like the budget and take a projected debt of $5.5bn down to $2.4bn. That is a massive turnaround.
This morning I was listening to the Leader of the Opposition in the federal parliament talk about a clear difference between Malcolm Turnbull and what the government would look like if Australia chose a Labor government to lead this nation. I could not help but hear the hypocrisy in his voice when talking up Labor’s credentials and economy management. When John Howard’s Liberal Coalition government handed the tiller to the Labor government, the position this government was in financially to where it ended up when Tony Abbott took over government …
Mr Elferink: There was zero net debt.
Mr CHANDLER: There was zero debt. It was said that there were other countries that owed us money.
Mr Elferink: Even Gallop managed it in WA, so Labor can do it.
Mr CHANDLER: They are good at spending money and racking up a debt bill, yet at the same time they talk about wrecking our economy. The only thing that stimulates money back into government coffers is a vibrant economy. Everything they talk about they want to destroy. We are talking about reducing red tape and trying to stimulate the economy and facilitate business, which should be the want of every government. Every government should want a strong economy and a strong business world. We have inherited a government that was nearly broken and in debt, but in a few short years we have been able to right the wrongs of the debt situation and stimulate an economy to the point we are often looked at as the envy of the rest of the country.
There are other premiers, ministers and parts of government, from the federal government through to state jurisdictions, looking at the Northern Territory wondering what we are doing that is so different. Why have we been able to turn the ship around? How have we been able to keep CPI low? How has real growth in wages gone relatively smoothly and in an upward direction? This is all at the same time as taking care of one of the major issues Territorians had at the last election, which was the cost of living. We inherited a government that failed to release land and pushed housing prices up through stimulus packages at the same time as not releasing enough land. You wonder why we had some of the highest house and land prices in the country.
Territorians had had a gutful, which is why they put their confidence in the Country Liberals to right the wrongs. Now the Labor opposition, three-and-a-half years out of office – similarly, a Labor opposition in Canberra – is spruiking how good it was in government. I ask Territorians to remind themselves of what it was like three-and-a-half years ago, and what it was like at the Australian level three years ago. It was a different world because we were drowning in debt at a federal level and the Territory level. This government, under the leadership of Adam Giles, has pointed the Territory in a new direction. We are trying hard to diversify the economy.
At the same time we have a Labor opposition which keeps coming up with policies akin to a wrecking ball to our economy. God save us if we have a Labor government after the next election. God save Australia if we have a Labor government under the so-called leadership of Bill Shorten after the next election, because we will see this country and the Territory go backwards because of the policies they continue to bring forward. They want a big bureaucracy and more red tape. They do not like to work with the business world or to streamline businesses so we can see an improvement in our economy.
Red tape needs to be efficient at the same time as providing a safety net. As the member for Nelson said, you need minimal bureaucracy. You do not need the duplication of bureaucracy we have seen in the Territory. We are working hard to streamline that, but it takes time. Sometimes it takes years because you do not face every issue every day. A developer or business owner may describe to me a process they have just gone through. I sit there scratching my head, wondering why we have that process in place. When you drill down, what I go back to is that sometimes the processes do not pass the commonsense test. That should be the common denominator with this type of legislation.
I support this Red Tape Reduction (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, and I commend this government, under the leadership of Adam Giles, for the work we have done over the last three-and-a-half years on reducing red tape. There is more work to do because there is still a level of bureaucracy, duplication and process that we can streamline further.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, along with my colleagues, I support this bill. It is important that this parliament takes note of the issues that affect Northern Territory businesses every day and acts to deal with those issues to make the lives of Territorians and business owners easier than they have been in the past.
Thinking back through my seven-and-a-half-plus years as a Member of the Legislative Assembly and the member for Katherine, one resounding issue that comes to mind – not the major one, procurement – which is raised with me by business is red tape. The complaints I have heard over the last few years were about the increases in red tape that have occurred over the past decade and how difficult that has made business for the Northern Territory.
We can put that down to the legacy of 11 years of a Labor government, from 2001 to 2012. It is the type of thing we would see from the Labor Party. I guess you could describe it as being part of their DNA. The size of the public sector increased dramatically under the Labor Party. Not that I have a problem with that per se, but only when there is sufficient business and economic activity in the Northern Territory to support a larger public service. That is why, when I was minister for the portfolios for which I had responsibility, I strived to ensure the number of public service employees in my sectors reflected and represented the needs of industry.
At the same time, we were also cognisant of the fact that doing business in the Territory had become difficult. That is why we embarked on a red tape reduction strategy and committed to ensuring that the NT has a competitive regulatory and policy framework to go along with that.
This bill is about reducing the burden of government regulation and administration on businesses in the Northern Territory. I know that is something the business community in the Northern Territory will be very pleased to hear. As a government, we recognise the importance of and priority to reduce red tape to make life for businesses easier. Reducing unnecessary regulation and administration requirements helps to improve productivity by freeing up time to get on with business and save businesses money to improve competitiveness.
This government is in the process of – and I am very proud to say this because it has moved on since the last time I spoke about it – reducing 270 instances of red tape. The last time I mentioned a number of instances of red tape this government was targeting, the number was 200. That was only about six months ago. Now we have added an additional 70 instances of red tape and each one of those will have an impact on businesses somewhere in the Northern Territory to make their job a bit easier.
In July 2015 we released the NT government’s Red Tape Reduction Strategy. One part of the strategy was to reduce paperwork and the number of contacts that businesses, NGOs and individuals needed within government. Reducing the time spent on compliance will free up businesses and people to devote their time to more productive uses, such as growing their businesses and making the investments that will grow the Territory’s economy.
The strategy requires government agencies to, among other things, extend licences, permits, registrations and other approvals from annual terms to five years or longer, if appropriate; place transactions online; and prefill renewal forms. This has been occurring across government and this bill implements more of these time-saving reforms.
For example, this bill removes red tape by extending licence terms from one year to an option of one, three or five years for a range of businesses, including real estate agents, business agents, conveyancing agents, commercial and private agents and auctioneers. Commencement of these longer licence terms will be complemented by the go-live for these licences of the new Department of Business licensing and compliance system. This system is being rolled out in a stage process with stage one including real estate agents, business agents, agent’s representatives, conveyancing agents and commercial and private agents. All these licences can be applied for and renewed online with renewal forms prefilled and automatic notification of when renewal is due.
In a computer age it seems nonsensical not to have this type of strategy in place to help businesses because computers, despite the practical side of them, are supposed to make our lives a heck of a lot easier. This is a great package of reforms that will assist approximately 650 existing agent licensees and 600 agent representatives.
In addition to the new reforms in this bill, red tape reforms implemented by the government include, for example – this moves on to some broader areas where I hold some interest – non pastoral use of pastoral leases, which frees up businesses to innovate and diversify their businesses and new investment opportunities. It also includes the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Food business registration is now online with smart forms where 2300 businesses can now transact fully online. Environmental protection licences are now online and we have introduced a minimum three-year funding agreement for NGOs.
The government is working hard to provide regulatory certainty and efficiency for our key economic development sectors, including onshore petroleum development, agriculture, tourism, construction and development. In an area that is close to my heart, which is tourism, tour operators now have the option of one-, three- and five-year tour operator permits to conduct tours in NT-managed parks and reserves. They can also apply online for tour operator permits in all parks except Channel Point Coastal Reserve, the Garig Gunak Barlu National Park at Cobourg Peninsula, and the Larapinta Trail.
This is good for the Katherine region, having Nitmiluk National Park at its doorstep. It provides local tourism operators an opportunity to save some time and get their house in order for a longer period of time so they can do what they do best and conduct their business.
This also applies to checks on cosmetic standards for commercial passenger vehicles at MVR. They have been removed, enabling tourism operators greater choice and flexibility in where and what time their vehicle inspection takes place.
New initiatives that will reduce red tape will be introduced as part of the Northern Territory government’s review of the commercial passenger vehicle industry. These include amending the Commercial Passenger (Road) Transport Act to replace the current nine CPV licence categories with five, namely bus, taxi, minibus, private hire and charter. It will regulate that vehicles within each category will have similar market access and will pay the same annual licence fee. It will amend regulations to reflect that courtesy vehicles will no longer be required as CPVs; however, drivers will still be required to meet fit and proper requirements and hold a current CPV identification card. It will also develop a single body of regulations to simplify the current complex system.
There will be less paperwork for commercial activity permits. Applicants for permits to conduct commercial activities in NT-managed parks and reserves are no longer required to supply copies of certificates or licences related to food handling, liquor licences etcetera. The requirement to hold these certificates and licences remains but applicants are not required to supply copies. This makes it easier to achieve environmental approvals for major projects via bilateral agreements with the Commonwealth government for a one-stop shop for assessments.
The Tourism Advisory Council will be appointed by 30 April this year to investigate and make recommendations to remove unnecessary red tape affecting the tourism sector. This is another great step forward.
The Red Tape Reduction Strategy spells out this government’s commitment to achieving a regulatory environment that maximises productivity and incentives for innovation and investment, is underpinned by efficient administrative systems and processes, ensures regulation is in balance with the risk being managed, and minimises cost and impact on individuals, business and the NGO sector.
This bill reduces red tape for a broad range of business, including real estate agents, business licensors, conveyancing agents, commercial and private agents and auctioneers. This will help reduce costs in the property sector.
This bill also adds a significant red tape reform agenda, which is already in train. In other important areas, such as construction and development, survey approvals will be online, which allows private surveyors to apply for survey data, saving them time on data entry and duplication of information. Building approvals will be online, which will allow building certifiers to lodge building and occupancy permits electronically at any time, removing the need to attend a government office to lodge paperwork. There will be a one-stop shop for development applications. Processes have been improved to speed up assessment times and allow developers and the public to access information online about the development application process and current applications. That is good news.
I pick up on a comment made earlier by the member for Nelson about people with access to computers, and that people say that they often do not have time. Having these types of reforms in place where there is online access means people can, whenever they have a spare five minutes – after dinner, after the kids have gone to bed, when they are checking their e-mails in the evening – access this stuff and be effective in the way they have input into the processes of government, but in a far more expedient way, one that is more convenient for them. That is part of what this is all about.
It will also allow concurrent planning scheme and development assessments, which will speed up approval times by up to three months. That is fantastic news. Streamlining the unit titling subdivision process for new developments will reduce the need for multiple clearances from service authorities to a single clearance.
Reducing red tape is not just about removing regulatory requirements; it can also be about improving regulatory certainty for investors and developers. In October 2014 the government established the Construction and Development Advisory Council, the CDAC, to consult with the sector and develop recommendations to government about measures to reduce or remove red tape. The council investigated issues, consulted with stakeholders and reported to government on a range of recommendations which, in broad terms, include measures to improve things like certainty through long-term strategic planning, consistency in decision-making and customer-focused service delivery.
Government approved all recommendations in the report and is now implementing a range of measures to reduce red tape, including developing strategic land use plans and detailed area plans, which I will talk a little more on in the Katherine context in a moment; adopting land for use for Darwin’s inner and mid-suburbs, Alice Springs and Litchfield into the NT Planning Scheme; preparing uniform subdivision guidelines that provide additional certainty around the design, approval and handover of subdivision infrastructure; reviewing opportunities to streamline and improve our building certification system; and developing an approach to reducing duplication across builder registration, Contractor Accreditation Ltd, or CAL, and the Master Builders Fidelity Fund.
I will go back a short step and talk about the development of strategic land use plans. I will mention subdivision guidelines in the context of Katherine. It is fantastic that we have a new strategic land use plan for Katherine. It is something the Planning Commission, the department and the minister have worked very hard on. It was released a few years ago. It is an adaptable beast, which is a good thing. It is not set in concrete. In recent times I have approached the Planning Commission in my role as the Chair of the Katherine Flood Mitigation Advisory Committee and raised a few issues about some things that were not considered when the original document was put together, but which will be critically important for not only flood mitigation in Katherine, but for the future of our town.
Having this type of document, where changes are considered and adopted under appropriate circumstances, is fantastic. It means that things are organic, moving all the time and, if circumstances change, perhaps those things can change as well.
In talking about the uniform subdivision guidelines, it is very pleasing to see the largest private residential land subdivision in Katherine is well and truly under way.
I am a Facebook user. I was on my Facebook page the other day and up popped a memory. I do not know if people are familiar with that feature on Facebook, but it is a photo from 12 months or two years ago. Up popped a photo of me standing in front of a bulldozer with the developers and the real estate agent that was going to market the land being subdivided in Katherine. That was a year ago. It was still being bulldozed; the critical civil infrastructure was beginning and starting to go in. Because our government has been so proactive in this space not only in Katherine, but across the Territory …
Mr Chandler: It was not the Labor government.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: No, it was not the Labor government; I will pick up on that interjection in a second. It is great to see, 12 months on from that memory, houses now being built on that land. I was speaking to the real estate agent marketing them and he said more than 50% of those blocks have been sold. That is fantastic news. The developer, when we were working closely with him on getting the contract right, was a bit worried that these blocks would not sell quickly enough in order for him to comply with his contractual conditions with the government. He will be pleased to know that not only has he been able to easily surpass what is required under the contract, but that 50% of those blocks of land being sold is a great testament to the future of Katherine and will provide for the growth that Katherine needs. Katherine is at a cusp; we are about to have close to $500m spent at the Tindal air base, which will have some enormous positive impacts on our town.
This government has worked extremely hard over the past three-and-a-half years to repair the damage from the Labor government’s cattle ban, which was imposed in 2011. We have brought that industry back from the brink. That might sound a little off beam for the topic today, but it relates to Katherine and its important role and strategic position in the cattle industry. We have a booming cattle industry again, thanks to the efforts of this government. Land release in Katherine to grow the town and prepare it for the next growth spurt …
Mr Wood: At a good price too. It is cheaper than Darwin.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: It is cheaper than Darwin; thank you, member for Nelson. Yes, land in Katherine is cheaper than Darwin and that may be why some investors have had their eye on those blocks of land.
If we have uniform subdivision guidelines on reducing red tape around subdivisions, it will make the job easier and allow towns like Katherine to grow and become more prosperous in the future.
All these initiatives are about providing greater regulatory certainty, clarity, consistency and customer focus for the construction and development sector, a critical sector for growing and developing the Territory. Regulation that provides more certainty for developers and the building industry facilitates investment in the Territory and benefits the whole community.
The bill contributes to a balanced regulatory framework to ensure our economy is and remains productive and competitive.
According to the Deloitte 2015 survey, entitled Blueprint for Optimum Growth, regulatory compliance was identified as one of the top three inhibitors of growth by the 100 NT businesses surveyed. The NT is dominated by small businesses, which rarely have staff or time to deal with regulatory compliance. That is why one of the priorities of this government is the reduction of unnecessary regulatory costs for the Territory economy.
The objective of the government’s Red Tape Reduction Strategy is to achieve a regulatory environment and culture within government with the following goals: maximising productivity and incentives for innovation and investment; efficient use of administrative resources; regulation proportionate to the risk being managed; and a customer-focused approach which minimises cost and impact on individuals, businesses and the NGO sector. This bill meets these goals by extending a range of licences, permits and registrations from annual renewals to the one-, three- or five-year licence term option. For example, an extension of a bore construction permit from one year to two years makes life a little easier for companies engaged in that type of work.
Of the 270 red tape reforms that have been implemented or are under way, there are a few others that I have a strong interest in, given that they fell within my responsibility as the minister for Primary Industry and Land Resource Management, such as the introduction of the non-pastoral land use permits; the significantly reduced approval time for land clearing applications from six months to two to three months, which is fantastic; the introduction of a new 10-year enterprise permit for crocodile farms; and the implementation of the new 1080 wild dog management program, which streamlines regulations and reduces administrative burden, ensuring pastoralists have the powers they need to get on with the successful management of their properties. This includes replacing the annual permit with five-year baiting permits; simplified training and accreditation processes, including more flexible onsite trading options for those laying baits; and transport and collection of concentrate being made more flexible, allowing delivery to freight companies, which will give pastoralists more flexibility to coordinate targeted baiting programs with their neighbours.
I remember the discussion I had with the executive officer of the Cattlemen’s Association about the 1080 baiting program when I was the minister. That was in mid- to late 2014. Going back even further, there was some work done by the government to make the system better. There was a big change of the system of 1080 baiting. It went from being the responsibility of Parks and Wildlife to being the responsibility of individual property owners, and it was heavily regulated.
The industry was involved in that transitional process, but we found that the regulatory environment introduced at the time, although all stakeholders were involved, still needed to be refined. There were some unintended consequences flowing from the changes and the regulatory environment that was put in place. The government acted, and I began a process of consultation with the industry in 2014 to look at what needed to be fixed.
I just read out a couple of things about the changes to the 1080 program. That was not an exhaustive list; other changes were made, but each of those changes reflects an issue that was raised with the government by the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association, and we acted. We looked at them and said, ‘Yes, you are right. We can fix this. Let’s work together with industry to fix this.’ This is a great example of government working with industry to iron out some problems and it is why we now have this new system in place which makes it 100 times easier for pastoralists to deal with 1080.
Some of these regulatory changes put more responsibility on those being regulated. In my mind that is not a bad thing. We do not need to overregulate or regulate unnecessarily. If we have sensible people working in a sensible industry, with clear goals in mind and an idea about what they are doing, they should be given – certainly not carte blanche or free range – a regulatory environment that is sensible, does not hinder what they want to do and helps them achieve their goals.
Wild dogs are a huge problem for our pastoralists. They take millions of dollars out of the economy every year. The government moved to help the pastoral and cattle sectors in the Northern Territory to regulate this process to make it easier for them to reduce the impact on the economy. It is about the government listening to the industries with which we have dealings every day.
Therein lies the difference between this government and Labor. The Labor government talked with industry, I will concede that, but then ignored what it had to say in so many areas. Labor imposed ridiculous regulatory environments, things that made it bloody hard to do business in the Northern Territory.
When we came to government, the first people through our doors were those complaining about the red tape Labor had imposed. I hope we do not have to return to a Labor government any time soon in the Northern Territory because all the good work the Country Liberal government has done over the past three years will be undone. As I said, it is in the Labor Party’s DNA to impose heavy regulatory environments and fill the public service. With all due respect to the public servants, some of them then try to justify having a job by finding new regulations and ways to impose them on businesses.
That had to stop. We want can-do people. We want people in our public sector who are not there just to be police officers; we want them to help industry across the Northern Territory. Through the executive arm of government, Cabinet and then parliament passing laws, government sets the regulatory environment and passes on the culture through our chief executive officers to say, ‘We want business to thrive in the Northern Territory and for the public sector to help and play a big role in that’.
We have before us a bill that is making some of those changes, which will allow our public sector to move on and help our industries across the Northern Territory. By achieving these red tape reductions we will make a difference every day to some small businesses. That is what this is all about. We are a government that cares; we listen and act.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I shall not be on my feet long as I am aware the House has business to do. It enlivens me listening in this debate to some of the issues the Northern Territory faces going forward. It has been clearly articulated by members in this House, notably the member for Katherine, the Minister for Sport and Recreation and the Minister for Education, about what this bill attends to. There is an underlying philosophy we also need to consider – touched on by the Minister for Education – in regard to what it means to be a government that tries to enliven and free up the economy so it can continue doing what it should be doing: employing people.
Gone are the days when corporations were these rapacious organs that were built over time, trying to slash and burn their way through the public environment with only one view in mind: fattening their own bank accounts. Corporations today are far more socially aware mechanisms that step forward very carefully, being mindful of the impact they have on the community.
Corporations, to a large degree, have taken up self-regulation as a matter of philosophical construct rather than the response to a burden being imposed by a government. Having made that observation, it then lands on the feet of government to take the pressure off those corporations and allow them – give them entitlement, if you like – an earned autonomy so long as they continue to demonstrate that autonomy going forward. I would prefer to see company boards setting their own agenda for responsibility than imposing them from external sources as we tend to do in government.
Having made that observation, I pick up on the nature of this, freeing up, liberalising – hence our party’s name and our belief system, a Country Liberal government, which believes in freeing up people so they can be the very best they can be. That includes corporations and other organisations of that type.
The time has come, with an election around the corner – it seems there will be a federal election before we go to the polls in the Northern Territory in August, which means for the next four months we will be, essentially, in election mode, longer than any other jurisdiction in the country. As a consequence, people will be thinking much more carefully about investing. A four-month election period means people will take a wait-and-see approach towards investment.
It is important now to send certain signals. The passage of this bill today – I presume it will pass – will send an important signal to the community that the Country Liberal government is about taking the foot off the neck of businesses, other organisations and individuals, giving them the autonomy they need to step forward in a responsible fashion. The Leader of the Opposition says the same thing. He says he supports this legislation and believes government should do exactly the same thing. The problem is I do not see that philosophy being reflected in the opposition’s important announcements and comments in relation to other issues which affect investment in the Northern Territory right now. Labor’s position, therefore, is logically inconsistent with what I have heard today, and the Education minister touched on that.
Unconventional gas is an area where the opposition has sent mixed messages and has stone dead killed any form of investment in the next four months in the Territory. The Opposition Leader was on television last night, saying the government had made no plans going forward for the diversification of the economy. That is arrant nonsense and rot. We have seen results in the cattle industry and the tourism industry, and we would like to see results in the unconventional gas industry, but the political opportunists opposite us send inconsistent messages, to say the least, into the community.
___________________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of Student Representative Council members from Stuart Park Primary School, accompanied by Katie Streader. Welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
___________________________
Mr ELFERINK: These inconsistent messages mean that this jurisdiction is on the verge of becoming atrophied, at least in the development of unconventional gas, for the next four months, and then for a moratorium period, which is of an uncertain time frame, going forward. Businesses and companies do not remain stationary while they wait for governments to do things. If governments do not send clear and unambiguous signals into that environment in the first instance, it automatically follows that they will not wait; they will go somewhere else and that investment money will be lost.
A classic example of how oppositions and governments have worked together in history in this jurisdiction is the Ichthys development. I will let a little trade secret out; when we were in opposition the then Leader of the Opposition, Terry Mills, made some comments about the Ichthys development, which sent a ripple of uncertainty into the environment. The matter was discussed – I was only a staffer at that stage, in between being the member for Macdonnell and the member for Port Darwin – behind the scenes. Terry, to his credit, changed his position so he fulsomely supported the Ichthys project.
I remember passing the legislation; I was back in the House at that stage, in opposition. The government came in with a bill, offering specific performance to INPEX so it could build on Blaydin Point. It would have been an easy case to run that we do not build in the harbour. I did not want to build in the harbour and I do not think ConocoPhillips should have gone into the harbour, but there is a threshold where you have to make a decision. You either support something with the difficulties attached to it, or you do not.
Opposition, in the case of Ichthys project and the development at Blaydin Point, not only offered its support in general, but also offered its support for specific performance, which is an equitable principle in contract law and was quite particular in relation to where the INPEX plant would be built. The message to INPEX, particularly with the passage of that bill, was that 25 members of this House voted for the same thing. It enabled the government of the day to have the comfort to step forward and see development of the gas fields in the Northern Territory.
Wind the clock a little further back and see that INPEX, as an organisation, came to the Territory because it was not getting those signals from Western Australia. The Western Australian government was hardly enthusiastic about it. There was also noise from the opposition at that point because where the pipeline would have come across the Western Australian coast there was a whale breeding ground and there would have been a number of other challenges in relation to native title.
The government of the day – and congratulations to them, especially Clare Martin and Paul Henderson – got some advice from Paul Tyrrell. It was a long shot, but they went after it. After an original positional change by the then CLP opposition, it then supported the government in pursuing this and the passage of the legislation. As a consequence, a $32bn project was realised for Darwin.
Compare and contrast that with what is happening now. We are, as members of parliament, in a position of community leadership. There is little doubt, for anyone who has taken the time to read things like the Hawke report or get briefings from the various departments, that the process of developing unconventional gas in the Northern Territory is a completely different kettle of fish to other jurisdictions. There is little to suggest, if anything at all, that the development of unconventional gas in the Northern Territory is anything but safe and sound.
The regulatory environment which the Northern Territory government has created is firmer than the regulatory environment the former Labor government developed around the further expansion of unconventional gas. I say further expansion because we have been using unconventional gas in the Northern Territory for decades, yet the political opportunity is more important than the economic opportunities to the members opposite. They say they do not like red tape.
But what is a moratorium if it is not one of the greatest instruments of red tape? How long will this moratorium last? It depends who you talk to. If you want to believe the member for Johnston, I think he said two years. If you believe the Leader of the Opposition – did he say five years? I could stand corrected, but someone dropped that figure. Then the former Treasurer, Syd Stirling, who is now the head of the Labor Party in the Northern Territory, said, ‘For an indeterminate period of time’.
Picture yourself as a gas company wanting to develop unconventional gas somewhere in the world, perhaps in Australia because it does not present too much sovereign risk. You knock on various doors – South Australia, Queensland, New South Wales, Northern Territory and Western Australia – and the answer you get from the Northern Territory is, ‘We might think about letting unconventional gas be developed in the Northern Territory possibly, sort of, maybe for an indeterminate period of time. Will you invest?’ The answer is a clear and unambiguous no, yet the Leader of the Opposition maintains his positon that we must have a moratorium.
The assistance afforded to the Labor government in years gone by, by the Country Liberals in opposition, has not been replicated and it will be to the expense of the Northern Territory. The regulatory environment the Labor Party put together enabled unconventional gas to be sourced and explored in places like Katherine, Darwin, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs. The current Country Liberal government has made it abundantly clear that those places will not be allowed to be developed because of public concern. In my opinion it is unfounded, but nevertheless, it is public concern.
We understand that people are apprehensive about this and, given the amount of noise surrounding this issue, I can understand why. The problem is that the noise is not supported by the science. Rather than taking a responsible position for the future development of the Northern Territory the Leader of the Opposition has chosen to take an irresponsible position.
One of the other ways the Northern Territory government has sought to broaden the footprint of the development of the Northern Territory economy is by issuing water licences in a more assertive fashion than was historically done by the Labor government. As a consequence, a number of water licences – I believe 40 or so – have been issued. Once again a political opportunity has been seen by the members opposite. The people who had water licences issued, if they have not started to develop their projects surrounding their receipt of a water licence they will now not be able to. If there is a change of government their water licence will be reviewed and possibly taken away from them.
There are other people or organisations that have gone down the path of developing on the back of the water licence that has been issued to them. They will not expand, and it is not inconceivable that they will step away from their investments. What will happen with that investment money? It will not sit in a bank account waiting for the government to get its stuff together; it will go elsewhere. The risk we are demonstrating as a jurisdiction means we are becoming less viable with every passing day because we, as a jurisdiction, are not able to demonstrate certainty for investment into the Territory.
Those noises are not coming from the Northern Territory government, but from the Labor opposition and several Independents who see the political opportunity. I find it incomprehensible that the Leader of the Opposition would, in sittings past, complain about the empty shops he sees in Darwin and Alice Springs then immediately garrotte the opportunity to see the economy develop further so those shops might fill again. He has placed, through his irresponsible conduct, a boot on the throat of investment in the Northern Territory. And he has not done it for a short period; he has done it for an indeterminate period going forward. This is a direct and real threat to the economic diversification of the Northern Territory, something he has argued for over the last few years, which this government has been assiduously attending to for the last three years. Yet every time this government attempts to move down that path the Labor opposition says, ‘No, we will review it; we will place a moratorium on it.’
They then complain that investment is not coming to the Territory. They must start thinking as an alternative government not an opposition. To oppose is, by definition, at least in the context of this place, a destructive and negative thing to do.
This opposition will claim that at the next election it will form the next Territory government, yet every utterance from those members is to hamstring themselves as the alternative government. It should not be about them, nor for that matter should it be about us. Surely it should be about the people who are trying to make their way in life in our community, and it must be about the people who look to government to create an environment where they can invest and make the best possible decisions for themselves.
If the Leader of the Opposition continues to maintain this notion that you can undermine government for a political opportunity, he does it at the expense of jobs.
I hear spending announcement after spending announcement from the members opposite, and no indication as to how they will pay for it. How often do I come into this House and hear members of the opposition say government should do this and government should build that? Then you start to hear some of the promises going forward. Is it $1bn of housing in remote areas, at $100m a year over the next 10 years? Paid for with what?
There will not be the royalties you will need to pay for those types of things. There will not be the income from other sources, and it is clear that the GST will not be a great source of income going forward. That opportunity has now passed us by. It passed us by with the Labor government, which was so awash with GST income that it was able to expand the public service from 14 000 to 20 000 in the time it was in government. From 1978 the public service of the Northern Territory was about 13 000 to 14 000, going through to 2001, when it remained at 14 000. Between 2001 and 2012, under the tutelage of the Labor government, the public service expanded by 6000 to 20 000, where it stands today.
Of course we, on this side of the House, are the villains of the piece, but not because we cut the public service; we merely have not expanded it. The Territory should grow around it. But how will we continue to pay for those public servants? The GST revenue will not necessarily expand. The relativities will change in a very nasty way now that Western Australia is back on the nipple of the Commonwealth Grants Commission, after the commodities’ prices tanked. The pool is not getting much bigger, and the ask from Western Australia is getting substantially larger.
The net consequence of that is we have an opposition that has no clear plan beyond the next election. It may succeed in its intents and achieve government. Then it has the problem of keeping all those promises to wind back the economy, the development and the water licences, or review them; turn off the gas; build lots of houses; expand the public service; and give the unions what they want. All of that will happen, and there is no clear picture as to how it will be achieved.
There is only one way to achieve it. If you do not cut it back, you have to stick it on the credit card. All the pain we, as a government, have had to inflict in the last couple of years will be undone in a couple of weeks. We will return to a situation where the projected debt will be $5.5bn or worse and our credit rating will drop from AA1 down to probably a ZZZ in that environment. That is all right. They will have said, ‘We won government’, if they win, and they will make it up as they go along. You cannot do it that way.
There is no clear vision from the members opposite and the recipe they are writing for the cookbook of their form of governance is one of disaster. I call upon the Leader of the Opposition to step away from his comments in relation to the moratorium on unconventional gas, and allow the development of the Northern Territory to go ahead in an environmentally sound fashion, with all the checks and balances in place, so we can continue being players rather than mendicants in this Federation we call Australia.
Debate suspended.
The Assembly suspended.
RED TAPE REDUCTION (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 157)
(Serial 157)
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr STYLES (Business): Madam Speaker, I thank all members of the House who contributed to this debate. It is a very interesting debate; it is diversified and has many angles and tangents that go off the central theme of reducing red tape.
The Giles government is about diversifying our economy. I listened carefully to words uttered by the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Fannie Bay, saying we do not have a plan. Sadly, he obviously does not read very much or get his staff to read what the CLP Giles government is doing.
I will enlighten a few people in this House and those watching and listening in relation to how we are cutting red tape. One of the things industry is concerned about is time delays and the cost of red tape. Many people say it is reducing the cost of doing business, but there are also opportunity costs, which includes what could or could not happen with that money when it is tied up in banks or allocated elsewhere that cannot be used for other purposes. Because of red tape, sometimes the banks withdraw their support because of the length of time involved. It seriously affects business. Business is about creating an economy which creates the jobs that Territorians need.
Let us look at some of the things we have done to try to reduce red tape. GST, stamp duty and royalties are all down. We are asking people to become more efficient and we have looked at governments becoming more efficient. We have also asked private enterprise to become more efficient. The Department of Business runs programs to help businesses understand their environment better. We run courses on how they might improve tendering, business practices and governance. This is all about reducing red tape and reducing the level of red tape impost, both financially and in opportunities of whatever they could have done with that investment.
We are trying to ensure that investors who come to the Northern Territory can attend one-stop shops and do not have to go through as much red tape. We got rid of over 200 instances of red tape, with more coming – 70 this year. The one-stop shop at the Northern Australia Development Office is one avenue where we can demonstrate very clearly that we are about reducing the impost on business.
Some of the international investor community and the decision-makers we hosted at the Red Carpet Investor Forum, which finishes today, looked at various opportunities in agribusiness, forestry, horticulture, aquaculture, beef production, food production, protein production for feeding fish and hay production for feeding cattle in feedlots. There is so much happening.
All of them talked about the cost of doing business and time delays in getting businesses approved. In the last three-and-a-half years we have had a major shift in the reduction of the cost and time of doing business.
The former Labor government, the red tape they have brought in and want to bring in relation to moratoriums – I am led to believe the opposition announced 12 inquiries. When you have an inquiry everything stops. The problem is it would appear Labor does not care about business, but wants to stop things from occurring.
This is where the Leader of the Opposition clearly demonstrates he does not understand how business works. As articulated by the member for Port Darwin earlier in this debate, businesses do not have a one-shot-in-the-locker approach. They do not have the money sitting in the bank, waiting for government to make decisions about what we will do. This government, the Giles government, has a very clear plan to diversify our economy. The other side has 12 inquiries and a moratorium on existing industry in the Northern Territory. Labor will have a moratorium on something that has been happening here for nearly 50 years, without any incidents, I might add.
The track record under the previous regulations was exemplary. We do not have a problem in the Northern Territory. There have not been any problems with shale gas fracking in South Australia or Queensland, which is why the South Australian and Queensland governments are saying, ‘We are very happy to take the investment from these overseas and Australian investors in the gas industry’. I know, from talking to people from the major companies in Perth, they are currently being courted by Queensland and South Australia.
The gas people who have billions of dollars to invest and thousands of jobs, as per Deloitte’s economic advice – there are 6300 extra jobs in the upcoming and ongoing fracking of shale gas in the Territory. The problem is that because of the wrecking ball approach of the Leader of the Opposition, these companies are now saying they are a bit shy about putting up their billions of dollars because they are not sure if anyone will do anything about protecting their interests and their shareholders’ interests.
When the Leader of the Opposition made his statement in February – one night he decided there would be a moratorium on fracking shale gas in the Northern Territory. The next day a company I spoke to in Perth pulled the cash it was going to invest – hundreds of millions of dollars from one company – out of the Northern Territory. They informed me they will invest it somewhere else. That saddens me because this is about the future of Territorians.
We have said continuously, since the Chief Minister announced it, we will get rid of red tape and make sure we develop the onshore gas industry further in an environmentally responsible way and take all the recommendations of the Hawke report. The Chief Minister mentioned just a few minutes ago in Question Time what we would do with the second Hawke report. We said, ‘You say it is okay, but now we want you to tell us how we can make it even better’. How do we assure people in the Northern Territory, Australians, or anyone in the world who wants to look at best practice – they only have to come to the Northern Territory to see our best practice.
I have heard about more red tape and inquiries, and I have heard media people in Darwin say they are sick of getting reports. Every report says if you regulate the industry shale gas is safe. I am not talking about coal seam gas or short drilling. This is long drilling anywhere between 4000 ft or 5000 ft down to 14 000 ft.
The other thing I ask Territorians to understand is that Territory shale gas is unique. It is trapped between two impervious layers of rock, one below where the shale gas is in the rock that contains the gas. You have to frack the rock so it releases the gas. The other layer of impervious rock is above it. It is like having a self-contained layer of shale gas, and there is a lot in Central Australia that we know about. There is an opportunity, according to Hawke, who had his report peer assessed.
The first Hawke report was about reducing red tape in relation to the oil and gas industry. We are about making sure you do an environmental impact statement for a range of wells. He looked at a range of things, and he took the time to look across the industry and review all the previous reports. He says that in Hawke report one. In the recommendations in his report, I think it is Recommendation 6, he says that this report should be peer assessed by people from around the world. This is not the Giles government saying it should be peer assessed; it is Dr Hawke saying that because of the work he had done – he had peer assessed everything else – his report should be peer assessed by some of the best people in the world.
In September 2015 in Sydney, chief scientists, the environmental protection authorities and a range of people from nine countries around the world got together, pulled the Hawke report to bits and examined it. At the end of it their report stated that you can frack in the Northern Territory with ease and safety, provided you have a regulatory environment and people follow it, and that there is no justification for any moratorium on fracking.
It is not just Dr Hawke saying that; these are the people sent by governments and agencies around the world to look at the Hawke report at the request of the people peer assessing the report.
I struggle when the Opposition Leader says he wants to see the science. The science is there; he just needs to read it. I will send him a copy of the reports and some of the links, where he can see they have been peer assessed. I was on radio one Friday and I heard that the member for Nightcliff had said, ‘We want to see the science’. Sadly, they do not know the science exists. It seems to me that so many things they are saying are just because they have failed to research it. Simply Google some of this stuff and you will see more information than you know what to do with.
I heard the member for Karama talk about something happening in Wyoming. There are reports that that water was of poor quality before, let alone after. There is debate on the condition of the water and there are reports stating the case before and after. I am not interested in what happened in Wyoming because we have a different process here.
The other thing I heard someone mention was that people can come in and drill on your property. I reiterate that we have some red tape – and I agree with the member for Nelson when he said we need to have some red tape – regarding protecting the environment. On this side of the House, after we introduce the regulations to the parliament, we will have world’s best practice. The red tape we have in place is about protecting our environment and making sure people do the right thing and drill according to world’s best practice.
There have been no accidents in the Northern Territory in nearly 50 years. It is interesting that they say they want to see the science. The science is there and they do not want to read it.
We have recently seen a turnaround. The Leader of the Opposition said Labor supports INPEX. INPEX has a great interest in the Beetaloo Basin now. It is now drilling for gas. It needs gas so it can have a backup to not only trains one and two, which are approaching completion at the INPEX site, but three onshore gas processing trains.
Shell’s Prelude is one of the first floating natural gas plants in the world and we are servicing that from Darwin. We can become the epicentre of the gas industry in the top part of Australia.
So that listeners and people watching this are aware, the northern part of Australia which is subject to the White Paper on Developing Northern Australia is about 40% of the Australian land mass. We get 60% of the rainfall here but, more importantly, we have 90% of Australia’s known gas reserves.
The Leader of the Opposition wants to shut down the gas industry and he talks about things not being as good as they were. They are not; we are coming off the back of the mining boom. We are looking at projects to replace that and diversify our industry through the gas industry, where there are 6300 new jobs and billions of dollars of investment.
We are looking at the forestry industry. TFS, or Tropical Forestry Services, has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in Katherine. All that is at risk at the moment because of the red tape Labor wants to put in place. Labor wants to stop everything …
Mr Elferink: And review the water licences that have been issued.
Mr STYLES: … and review the water licences that have been issued. What message does that send to people? I will take it down to a basic level. Someone comes in and says to the government, ‘I would like a driver’s licence, please’. ‘Great, okay, we will give you a driver’s licence; here it is.’ Then they buy a nice car. Then 12 months later the government comes along and says, ‘We will review your driver’s licence and may take it off of you. What will you do with your car? Put it in the garage or sell it and lose money.
It is not much different to being in government and saying, ‘Here is an exploration licence and application for 96% of the Northern Territory’. That included towns. People want to drill in the towns. If you live in the middle of Adelaide River and you have a shop on the main street and someone comes along with a drilling rig to drill, you cannot do that under what we plan.
We will not let people drill in town sites. We have taken them out. We will have shifted the water licences under the Water Act once we get the legislation through. We will have the red tape the member for Nelson was talking about when he was saying we like to see some red tape to protect the environment. You cannot drill in culturally sensitive areas or areas of high economic significance, be it agricultural or horticultural. You cannot drill in the middle of someone’s mango plantation nor can you go to Humpty Doo Barramundi and drill in the middle of the production area there.
We have strengthened it again by saying you have to get the permission from the land owner. If someone wants to drill on your property or wherever you have an interest, they have to say, ‘Excuse me, but we want to drill for gas on your property’. If you say no that is the end of the story. If you cannot get the permission of the land owner then you do not get to first base. Do not even fill out the paperwork. Talk to those people and find out what is going on.
It is important for the opposition to look at what is being proposed, what is already there, what we have done and what is on our record. I ask people who are listening or watching today’s live streaming, is this safe? Do we need more red tape to put extra cost on business? Do we need to put that sort of red tape in place to drive business out of the Northern Territory?
I do not understand why the Leader of the Opposition cannot understand basic business practices. He will drive investment out of the Northern Territory. He does not seem to understand why that will occur.
Mr Elferink: He has driven it out. It is already happening.
Mr STYLES: I pick up on the interjection from the member for Port Darwin. The Leader of the Opposition has driven investment out. People have cancelled drilling programs, investment and jobs. People have lost jobs already. There are already about 200 jobs that I know of. If you add that to the 6300 new jobs Deloitte conservatively estimates, 6500 jobs are already gone. Ancillary and associated jobs will also go. Someone from MS Contracting was on radio saying they would put on an extra 50 people – they were just about ready to give them a job – and there was a pile of people they had to put off from permanent jobs, so we are losing potential jobs already.
The Leader of the Opposition mentioned a population decline. We are increasing. That is a given and the figures are there. You do not have to ask us; get the real figures.
This is where you generate an economy. Again, the Leader of the Opposition indicates that he has no idea and is clueless about how to do that. You have to generate tax. Governments do not make money; they spend money. Private enterprise and business create the economy. On this side of the House we are ensuring we can facilitate business and that there is not a huge impost on investors and their shareholders. It does not matter if it is local people investing or national or international investors coming to the Territory. We need to send a clear message that we are open for business. You can come to the Territory and get your business going, but you want to ensure you get the environment right because if you cannot comply with that red tape – we are happy to keep that red tape because that is our kids’ future and our grandkids’ future. We are supportive of anything that protects our environment, which is why you need reviews. Obviously we created a time delay and some red tape, but you have to get that right.
The member for Nelson mentioned a paperless society and a paperless government. He said, ‘They just make us print this out. They send it to us, and then you download it and print it.’ That is the case, but at least now you do not have to get into your car and spend the time driving to the Motor Vehicle Registry or the Territory Business Centre. You can sit at home and print one piece of paper, compared to spending your time. Time is valuable to some people, whether they want to sit and read a book or be at work or running a business, building the Northern Territory and creating jobs.
I hear what you say, member for Nelson, but the carbon footprint is reduced dramatically by downloading a document and printing it at home. I will get a few pieces of paper from home and donate them to you so you do not have to worry about getting paper.
In regard to consumer protection, I agree with the member for Nelson. I think it is important we do that for the environment and reduce time. You spoke about apps. In getting rid of red tape this government has made some grants to the Council on the Ageing, which runs programs for older people. The Neighbourhood Activity Centres, an initiative of this government, are about a total community engagement package at Sanderson Middle School. I am very proud of the people there who coordinate that, that is, principal Liz Veel and director Paul Wyatt, as well as Robin Lawrence, who is the chair of the council. They do a fantastic job.
The feedback I receive when doorknocking is that people are starting to understand what is going on. It is also about seniors being able to get out and do what the member for Nelson was talking about. They can learn how to do things online and how to use their phones. I was thinking of going there myself and getting a 10-year-old to teach me how to use an iPhone. I can ring and talk to people, but there are so many other things you can do that I am not familiar with. There is something for everyone.
I will move on to something the member for Katherine raised. He talked about diversifying the economy, which the Leader of the Opposition does not seem to understand. Look at RAAF Base Tindal. In Katherine about $500m will be spent on upgrading the air bases and facilities to take the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter there.
What else is going on in Katherine to get rid of red tape? We on this side of the Chamber, in government, are about making sure we reduce red tape, but the Leader of the Opposition wants to put red tape in place and have a moratorium or a review on water; I am sure it is the same as a moratorium on jobs.
My understanding is that Tropical Forestry Services grows sandalwood not only for oils and pharmaceuticals, but for the timber, which is highly revered in Asia. It is stronger than ironwood. I was there a couple of weeks ago. I did not realise sandalwood is harder than ironwood. When you try to chop it with an axe it is almost impossible. It is very tough on their machinery.
Tropical Forestry Services is currently the world’s largest producer, but it will be far greater. Once it increases productivity, it wants to build a distillery. There are tens of millions of dollars that will be spent in Katherine. Again, the Leader of the Opposition wants to put red tape in the way so TFS cannot expand.
As we have heard from other speakers on this side of the House, businesses do not sit around and wait for people to make decisions. They cannot wait for four months until the election. If the opposition is put into government, it will hold this review. How long will that last? No one knows. There were 74 water licences outstanding when Labor was in government, for 11 years, that were not approved. That took years and years. People cannot wait that long. Businesses will go somewhere else to invest.
As I said before, it looks as though that investment will go over the border to Queensland or South Australia, which are Labor states. Look at forestry, wood chipping and a range of other things; those states are courting the people who are looking to invest in the Northern Territory. They are actively trying to get our investors to invest in their states. We, on the other hand, are actively trying to convince them to stay in the Territory and invest here. But they have to make investment decisions and they do not want to wait. This is having a major impact on the decisions made by the people who run the investment companies that have the equity, the joint venture capital or the foreign direct investment for a range of areas, not only forestry but beef, horticulture and aquaculture.
If you cannot get an opposition to say it stands for business, then these people are likely to go elsewhere. Some people have said they will simply wait to see what happens. They are in a position to wait, but others are not.
It is imperative that we ask. I believe the member for Port Darwin and the Chief Minister have asked that the Leader of the Opposition has a careful look at his position on some of these issues. The 12 reviews he wants when he gets into government if he is fortunate to be the Chief Minister – God help us if that happens. It will shut the Territory down.
I talk to people whilst doorknocking and I run the idea past them that these jobs are likely to go interstate to South Australia, Queensland or anywhere else. People are appalled when they find out there are people who want to shift this stuff from the Northern Territory. It boils down to people putting red tape up and reviews in. I am horrified that will happen. My family lives here; we are not going anywhere and they will have to put up with a reduction in the size of the economy, which will lower our GST and stamp duties.
The Leader of the Opposition proposes to put all this red tape in, which will shrink our economy. When he talks about a jobs plan, I do not know how getting rid of nearly 7000 jobs before you are in government will help create 14 000 jobs. When you have people in business who do not have the confidence and see the Northern Territory as an area for sovereign risk, I do not see how you can say you have a jobs creation plan. This is about shutting the Territory down, not increasing the wealth generation abilities in the Northern Territory. That includes jobs for our kids.
There is so much we could talk about in relation to this moratorium on jobs and the red tape the Opposition Leader wants to put in place. I ask all members and the opposition to have a very good look at what their plan is and what the consequences and ramifications are. I am happy to talk to any of them on a one-to-one basis or get briefings from some of these companies on the impact. Sometimes there are unintended consequences from the Leader of the Opposition because he does not understand economics or job creation. Perhaps some of these people can talk some sense into him.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Consideration in Detail
Clauses 1 to 33, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 34:
Mr STYLES: Madam Speaker, I move an amendment to clause 34. This reads that at the end of clause 34, proposed regulation 8(b)(iii), we omit ‘each Director mentioned in subparagraph (i)’ and insert ‘the applicant’.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Mr STYLES (Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
TABLED PAPER
Travel Report – Member for Nhulunbuy
Travel Report – Member for Nhulunbuy
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table a travel report from the member for Nhulunbuy dated 17 March 2016.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS
Public Accounts Committee Report – Public Private Partnership Arrangements for the Darwin Correctional Precinct – consideration adjourned.
Public Accounts Committee Report into Structural Separation of Power and Water Corporation – consideration adjourned.
Northern Territory’s Energy Future Committee Key Challenges and Opportunities Issues Paper – consideration adjourned.
Auditor-General for the Northern Territory’s August 2015 Report to the Legislative Assembly – consideration adjourned.
Auditor-General for the Northern Territory’s February 2016 Report to the Legislative Assembly – consideration adjourned.
Standing Orders Committee Report to the Assembly March 2016 – Motion to Adopt Recommendations – consideration adjourned.
Committee of Members’ Interests Report to the Assembly March 2016 – Motion to Adopt Recommendations – consideration adjourned.
MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Onshore Unconventional Gas Fracking
Onshore Unconventional Gas Fracking
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received the following letter proposing discussion of the following definite matter of public importance:
- The Northern Territory water resources, environment and natural landscapes are far more important than onshore, unconventional gas fracking. Fracking gas fields in the United States have proven to poison water, destroy land use and devastate communities.
The government and industry revenue and jobs predictions are based on the extraction of 200 trillion cubic feet of recoverable reserves and, as the ACOLA report from 2013 states, this would equate to approximately 55 000 wells across the three major shale gas basins identified in the Northern Territory.
For an industry with so many proven risks and with the extensive petroleum permits across the Northern Territory, including through underground drinking water resources, it is imperative that Territorians are given an opportunity to have a say on whether unconventional gas fracking goes ahead. Any government decision to pursue unconventional gas fracking should go to a public referendum for a mandate.
The letter is signed by the member for Karama.
Is the proposed discussion supported? It is supported.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I thank the government and the opposition for supporting discussion of this matter of public importance.
It has been my experience in working in government and opposition that one of the finest things we can do in representing our communities is to listen, and one of the finest things we can do in our careers is to learn every day.
I remember when fracking first arose as a question. I was the Treasurer then. I went to a press conference and someone threw a question at me about fracking. I had been given a heads up by a staff member prior to the press conference that I would be asked a question on fracking by a reporter. They provided me with advice on the response.
The question was in relation to fracking potential in the Barkly. The response was quite geological regarding the depths of the gas fields. I think it was something like 300 m below the surface, quite a different geological setup to New South Wales and Queensland. I gave that response, trusting that the information I was given was right, that the knowledge I had been provided was accurate and without really knowing about fracking. It was a question thrown and I was given an answer to provide; I trusted that was correct.
I have been on a really steep learning curve. It started for me when the discussions across our community started. I was Leader of the Opposition and visiting remote communities, and traditional owners raised their concerns and issues about fracking with me. I listened to their concerns and held lengthy discussions with them about it. I wanted to read about it so I started to read but continued to be briefed by industry, which was looking at investing in expanding onshore exploration efforts in the Territory. The investment that the government espouses as being a vastly significant opportunity for the Territory in economic development is overstated, but that is my view after looking at this issue closely.
I continued to learn and read the feeds that were coming in from overseas regarding the research that has emerged from the United States about the areas that have experienced fracking since the 1990s.
Until recently, I was fairly ignorant of what was happening with coal seam gas elsewhere in Australia, particularly in Queensland. I know shale fracturing is different to coal seam gas. I have been trying to get across the technological aspects of fracking and the different types of fields. What struck me significantly is that what industry said is consistent: world’s best practice; it is safe; and there will be jobs. The job figures quoted are very high; 6300 is the figure being bandied around by the government today.
They will not force their way onto properties; they have no desire to do that. They will work with pastoralists and if someone does not want them on their land they will not go on their land. Being someone who fundamentally trusts people and trusts what they say, I have believed it. I have had deep and growing concerns about the environmental impacts that have emerged – water contamination, soil contamination, air pollution – and I want to know more. Things have emerged very recently.
The Stanford University study into the effects of fracking in Wyoming has proven the water has been contaminated – peer reviewed. Yet driving into work this morning I heard APPEA representatives saying there is no proof the water was contaminated. That is not true, because it has been proven.
As well as being a learning curve it is also an understanding that what people have said from the industry about the benefits may not be true. I am trusting, so I thought surely not. It was gobsmacking to listen to the people from different parts of the world talk about their own lived experience. In my experience, not until you meet someone who has experienced this firsthand do you generally get to the detail of understanding and knowledge of what happens. Not what is espoused or predicted, but what actually happens.
I had the opportunity of meeting a woman from Queensland, Helen Bender, a very brave woman, and a man from Wyoming in the United States, John Fenton, whom I think is a very honourable and decent man. I saw the photos of the Wyoming ranch – they call it a ranch and we call it a station – which had cattle and crops, and has been in the family for decades. They have worked it for that long, as honest, hard-working farmers do. The wells and soil are poisoned. The photos of the lesions on their bodies are not made up. The nose and ear bleeds from their children are not slight bleeds; they are pools of blood. The chronic debilitating headaches of their children are not made up.
What struck me was that both had the same experiences and symptoms from the contamination of the water, the bubbling where you can literally light the methane gas emerging into the air as pollution from the water wells on their property. The water and land can no longer be used to feed their livestock.
Both had eerily similar stories in relation to soil contamination and air pollution. The photographs from John Fenton from Wyoming were so confronting that I defy anyone who sees his presentation to not question the validity of what has been said by the companies. There was a moment during the slides when John Fenton said, ‘Look at these lovely sandstone rocks’. They were huge towering rocks and etched into them were rock carvings by native Americans from God knows how long ago. He said, ‘That’s the legacy they have left us. It is a beautiful legacy, but look at the legacy we’re leaving now.’ The land is contaminated, cannot be worked, cannot sustain livestock or be cropped. They have lost their livelihoods.
They were promised it was world’s best practice and that it was safe. They were told it does not pollute the water or the land and that they would receive some monetary benefit from it. They were promised thousands of jobs that did not eventuate. The low number of jobs that came with the wells – we are talking thousands of wells across the US – tended to be for teams of people travelling, the fly-in fly-out workers and the boom/bust cycle of bringing in a crew because they know how to do the work. There was no local training and it was not locally provided.
All the things we are currently being promised were promised in the United States in the 1990s. The same happened in Queensland a decade ago and they have not eventuated. In fact, the worst possible outcome has: poisoned water, contaminated land, and families and children with obvious health issues. The industry is saying there is no evidence or proof. Week after week, the proof is emerging from scientists. That is why I brought this matter of public importance forward.
What will our legacy be if we decide to proceed with the pursuit of an onshore gas industry that requires unconventional gas extraction, which is fracking? The message from John Fenton of Wyoming and Helen Bender of just outside Chinchilla in Queensland was the same. ‘Don’t wait until it is too late to stop it. The wolf is at your door now. Stand together, united as a community to stop fracking.’ It is a simple, clear call to the Territory community, and it makes so much sense. Once the water is poisoned and the land is contaminated and our children have chronic health issues, it is too late.
Helen Bender went to – the area is now called a basin but they used to have another name for it in Queensland. She went to a group of specialists looking at the basin. With the amount of water required for the fracking process, it is depleting aquifers. That is a big issue they have in the US. It essentially dewaters the aquifers so there is no water; the rivers and the land run dry. There is no water to sustain the life there. They are experiencing the same thing in Queensland. The wells are running dry.
Helen asked how long it would take, if the extraction of water was stopped, to replenish the aquifers. The scientists have not done any modelling on that; they do not know the answer. They just said to her, ‘A very long time’.
What is a very long time? Everyone has a different view of what a very long time is. My goodness, our kids think a very long time is a day. Is it 50 years? Is it 100 years? The point is no one knows; the modelling has not been done. Yet decisions, approvals and action to extract all that water has occurred without knowing how to replenish the aquifers, how long it takes or what that modelling is. How can a smart nation do that? It is extraordinary.
The government talks about the potential of this industry and the great economic wealth that will be derived through royalties, even though the lived experience in the US and Queensland is that the royalties did not eventuate, even though we know the price of oil and gas is so low it is not economically viable and the companies are not making the profits to reap the royalties. The industry, through the ACOLA report, indicated that the industry revenue and jobs predictions are based on the extraction of 200 trillion cubic feet of recoverable reserves. The ACOLA report from 2013 also states that this would equate to approximately 55 000 wells across the three major shoal gas basins identified in the Northern Territory.
Georgina, McArthur and Wiso are beautiful landscapes in the gulf country and through the Barkly into Arnhem Land. Do you want to ruin country that is so linked to the people of the land, the pastoralists and traditional owners, the very people who are fighting hard against this? It is not 100% because some people believe the stories they were told – the same stories they were told in the US and Queensland, that it is good, safe and clean, and there will be jobs and royalty money. None of that eventuated in the US or Queensland. In fact, the opposite happened: it was not clean or safe; they did not get the jobs; the water is poisoned; the land is ruined; and the children’s and families’ health has been affected.
Like me, many people are trusting. You believe the good story until you learn otherwise.
What is the headlong rush? The CLP has not managed its economy as well as it likes to pretend it has. I get it; there is a real problem because they do not have a major project to follow the major Ichthys project. That will not change with this headlong pursuit of fracking. I do not believe you will be in government post August, CLP. Therefore, the moratorium will come into place, thank god. Will the government of the Northern Territory ask Territorians for their say, which is a request for the referendum?
Someone in debate today might say the referendum will be held anyway because of the election result. ‘Are you for or against fracking? If you are for it you will vote CLP and if you are against it you will vote Labor.’ Nonsense! How can you know what Territorians will vote on? Someone could vote on a completely different issue, like health, education, roads or the cost of living. Can you stop treating people with such contempt? Unless you have directly asked them about that issue, you do not know the answer. I do not know the answer. I am not standing here because I know that X percentage of people is for or against fracking. I am standing here because of what I have seen, heard and read, and because of the deep and binding care I have for our country and our people.
Can we take the time in the Territory to be smarter and better than others, and work it out carefully? If it is not safe or clean, and poisons the water and contaminates the land, as is the daily lived experiences in the US and Queensland – if we see, learn and know that, then make some decisions with the eyes wide open rather than burying our heads in the sand, pretending that is not the case when it is.
Then there is the Hawke report. I want to thank Lex Silvester, the barrister. He spoke at the public forum last night about being a Territorian of 46 years, with his children and grandchildren born here and most of them calling the Territory home. He was a lawyer and a barrister, and amongst his capabilities he has expertise in testing expert evidence in civil litigation and inquiries.
His interest was in the report of the independent inquiry into hydraulic fracturing in the NT, a document which is relied on by the Giles government in support of its decision to begin granting leases for fracking. Essentially, he showed it was a biased report that was deeply flawed. We know Hawke had a direct conflict of interest, being part of of a company with direct links to the growth of this onshore gas industry.
Give Territorians a say; please support a referendum. CLP, you will probably lose anyway, but at least let the Labor government know what it is up for.
Mr TOLLNER (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, what an interesting thing. We now have the Erin Brockovich of the Northern Territory addressing this Chamber with her mad MPIs, trying to kill investment opportunity, industry and jobs. The first question you have to ask is why the member for Karama is leading this debate. This is the baby of the Leader of the Opposition. He is the one who wants the moratorium, is committed to wrecking this industry and is committed to making sure onshore gas jobs do not occur. Yet leading the debate is the member for Karama.
You have to ask, ‘Where are the guts of the member for Fannie Bay?’ The Opposition Leader is the bloke who says he will put a five-year moratorium on onshore gas. Where is the intestinal fortitude of this man to lead this MPI? We are left with the Erin Brockovich of the Northern Territory parliament to come in here and run this mad MPI. This is crazy stuff.
There are obvious reasons why the Northern Territory government is committed to supporting the development of an onshore gas industry here in the Northern Territory. For more than 40 years gas has been used to create electricity in the Northern Territory. It has come from onshore gas reserves that in the past have powered Darwin and still power Alice Springs and other regional areas. We have offshore gas nowadays, powering Darwin and its regions.
Offshore gas also comes to Darwin and a lot of it is liquefied and exported overseas. Two of the world’s largest LNG plants are based in Darwin, that is, the ConocoPhillips plant, which operates from the Bayu-Undan reserve, and INPEX, which is currently under construction and looks at the Ichthys field in northern Western Australia. The private sector is to build a $1bn pipeline from the Northern Territory to Queensland, which will join the national gas network. This will provide hundreds of jobs for people in Central Australia and the Barkly. It is a decision I believe is welcomed by the people of Tennant Creek and the Barkly region. The member for Barkly might be able to confirm that.
Excess gas will be piped through that pipeline and used in the national gas grid. It is estimated the Northern Territory has 200 years of gas reserves in small pockets in remote parts. As the member for Karama said, some estimate around 200 trillion cubic feet. To put that into context, the Ichthys gas field in northern Western Australia is somewhere around 14 trillion cubic feet. That has warranted the construction of a $30bn LNG facility in Darwin, which all parties have welcomed, but 200 trillion cubic feet of natural gas is almost unimaginable. It is in excess of 10 times what is in the Ichthys field.
We are being told by the opposition and by what some call the Independent member for Karama – I think she is still the Opposition Leader – that we cannot touch what we have in the Territory, but it is quite okay to extract gas from northern parts of Western Australia. All the royalties from the Ichthys gas field go to the Commonwealth government, and all the royalties from onshore gas go to the Territory government, but that does not seem to reckon in the minds of those opposite. They do not care; they are simply out to destroy jobs and income.
The Giles government has adopted the most stringent environmental standards to protect the NT in any future gas exploration. Tomorrow I will table the Petroleum Bill, which will see more of those Hawke recommendations debated in this parliament.
The gas industry has a very small footprint and will only be allowed in a few selected remote areas. As the Chief Minister pointed out in Question Time, when we came to government 96% of the Northern Territory was made available for exploration applications by the then Labor government for onshore gas. Since then we have heard protests around the Territory with people saying they do not want fracking in their back yards. The government has moved on that. Rather than putting exclusion zones around the towns, we have looked at the gas resources in the Territory and we would be putting exclusion zones around most parts of the Territory. Why do we not just have inclusion zones and nominate only the areas where we will let gas exploration occur?
Less than one-quarter of the Territory is now considered an inclusion zone. There will be no gas exploration near towns, in people’s back yards, in areas of high ecological and natural value or areas where there is lots of agriculture. It will only be limited to those areas that are considered inclusion zones where you can actively explore.
The vast majority of the Northern Territory is now excluded from gas exploration. What a difference now to under the previous government, where virtually the whole Northern Territory was available for application to explore.
Our skilled workers – as they finish off the INPEX project their skills should be immediately available to be used in the Northern Territory. But Labor, by its action of putting this moratorium in place, is sending those workers somewhere else. Make no mistake; they are destroying those jobs here in the Northern Territory. Our skilled workers are also being used in the maintenance of offshore LNG plants, being built by Shell, in Western Australian waters. Our plan is to expand onshore and offshore gas fields over the next 20 years, and expand our industrial base that uses massive amounts of gas reserves.
This in turn utilises the Port of Darwin services in the gas industry and respective support industry which, in turn, provides additional work for our skilled workers in the Defence support industries, marine industries and other related industries around the town. The Defence support marine industry is vital to the Northern Territory, and with the right infrastructure and policies it will be a major industry into the future, but we need to create the industry it requires now. The Country Liberal government is providing $100m to support that to assist in developing a major shiplift facility which will, in turn, support the local marine sector as well as the Defence marine maintenance industry for the Australian Navy and other international navies that need refuelling, restocking and maintenance.
The Northern Territory needs scale and momentum in its industries to provide long-term, sustainable growth. We have put safeguards in place to protect our environment while allowing sensible and controlled exploration and expansion of the three new industries. The Leader of the Opposition wants to bring a moratorium to onshore gas activity – which will kill jobs for Territorians into the future – until a known scientist has done research.
We have done an independent review, so has the US Environmental Protection Agency, the UK’s Royal Academy of Engineering, the Council of Canadian Academies, the Scottish government, the Australian Council of Learned Academies, the Western Australian Department of Health, and Australia’s Chief Scientist. I could go on and on.
Hydraulic fracturing research has been done all around the world and it has been demonstrated that it can be done safely and sustainably over the long term, providing the proper environmental and governance regulations are put in place. It is as simple as that.
We have now sat here for 30 minutes listening to the Erin Brockovich of the Northern Territory saying the daily-lived experience is that water is poisoned, land is ruined and children are suffering, but there is not one jot of evidence to demonstrate that anywhere in the world. The member for Karama has heaped scorn on the Northern Territory’s Department of Mines and Energy, suggesting it has somehow filtered the information and refuses to look at the studies that show there is poisoned water, the land is ruined and the children are suffering.
I put it to the member for Karama to start tabling some of these things. Demonstrate where the department of Mines has misled people. She is a great one for walking outside and saying this government does not value public servants, but she is the first one to call their advice into question and suggest they are not doing the right job, and that somehow they are politically contaminated and running a line that is contrary to good governance. Member for Karama, either put up or shut up.
Start tabling the myriad of reports from all over the world that demonstrate water is poisoned, the land is ruined and the children are suffering. I do not believe you have them; I do not believe any sensible person believes you have them. I do not believe that the United States Environmental Protection Authority, the UK’s Royal Academy of Engineering, the Council of Canadian Academies, the Australian Council of Learned Academies, the Scottish government or any of those institutions and organisations from around the world believe you have them, because you do not. You are coming in here with nothing more than a scare and nothing to back you up.
You talk about the US experience. The US experience has largely driven this government’s thinking. In the mid-2000s, huge efforts were made by wildcatters in the US, largely unregulated, but they had laws to comply with. But in a fury they tried to crack shale gas. They knew there was gas and oil there, but they could not find a way to extract it from the shale so many kilometres below the ground. Then it happened; we had the US shale oil boom. What was the consequence of that?
First, there was a major change in global geopolitics because, for the first time in a long time, the US became an exporter of energy. It was not required in places like the Middle East, protecting its energy security. It did not have to send troops all over the world to ensure the energy futures of Americans; they had cracked the problem in the US to the point where they are now self-sufficient in their energy needs.
Second, manufacturing industries closed down in Europe and other parts of the world and started moving to the US, primarily because that was where they could get cheap energy. The gas started to flow, jobs started to grow and all of a sudden the US economy rebounded.
It is interesting to see the President of the United States browbeating other countries about their greenhouse gas emissions. Most notably, he was here as part of the G20, lecturing Australians on how we have to work harder to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The US radically reduced its greenhouse gas emissions. You have to ask, how did the US change its greenhouse gas emissions almost overnight?
Mr Elferink: It drilled half a million fracking wells.
Mr TOLLNER: That is a good interjection from the member for Port Darwin. They drilled wells and fracked them. It was not that large-scale solar plants were built all over the US, or large-scale wind farms or other renewable sources of energy. It was because they cracked shale gas. They released the energy from deep below the surface of the US and started converting coal-fired power stations to gas-fired power stations. That is how the US started to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. You ask if we want a part of that in Australia. I have to say, hell yes.
First, we are not the first to do this so we have all the science, technology, history and deep learning we can take away from the US and not make mistakes where they did. We can make sure, straight up, that we have the best environmental regulatory framework in place before we even embark on this industry. We can be almost 100% certain that we are doing it safely in the Northern Territory.
Second, with such an enormous reserve of gas, of course we want to exploit it because it means jobs, opportunity and a future for our children in the Northern Territory. This is not a rough, dirty, filthy industry; this is a clean industry with high-tech jobs, opportunities and people with a good education.
Admittedly, the first of the gas we get will be used for energy production, but as more and more gas comes online, I expect we will see more happening in the area of advanced manufacturing. Almost 50% of gas that is produced in this world goes to things other than energy production. It produces almost all the things we see around us.
It is interesting to see the Lock the Gate Alliance mob carting around these little triangular plastic signs which are made of – you guessed it – gas. They are actually promoting the industry by their very action of waving those plastic placards around.
It make sense for the Northern Territory to pursue this industry with our eyes open, learn from the mistakes of the past, employ world’s best practice and make sure we have the best regulatory environment in place to ensure this can proceed.
Madam Speaker, I deplore the member for Karama for her cheapjack political stunt in putting this forward. I find it dismal that the Leader of the Opposition does not have the character to lead this charge. After all, he is the one who wants to destroy these jobs and this industry. At least he should have the backbone to explain it.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, the first thing I note is that no member of the opposition has risen to speak on this debate. Where are they? Have they realised the difficulty they have created for themselves in announcing a moratorium, whatever that is, in the House today?
Their silence should echo deafeningly in the ears of all the members of this House. They know they are stuck in a horrible political situation. I invite them to unstick the politics by returning to the reality of the conversation we are having.
I hear the member for Karama, and whilst her sentiments may border on romantic in how she expresses herself, I understand what she is saying. Many mistakes may have been made in the United States. I have done a bit of homework and tried to inform myself. There is so much opinion on this that sorting the opinion from the facts is an extraordinarily difficult thing to do.
Where mistakes have been made is largely based in the technology. We may all remember the film Gasland. I have not seen the film but have seen scenes. The fellow walks over to his tap and strikes a match. The pipe shudders and then the gas coming from the tap catches fire; you have the effect of burning water coming out of the tap. I had to do homework into that.
The American department of the environment looked at those claims, and it was methane coming out of the tap; it had nothing to do with the nearby fracking holes. It had everything to do with the fact that his water bore had tapped into a source of methane.
We have to be governed by the science as much as we can be, but sorting the science out of the stories and mythology is difficult. When I received the flyer from Mr Fenton of Wyoming, I walked into my kitchen at home, opened Google and did some homework on Mr Fenton.
What I noted from Mr Fenton’s experiences was that there were problems with water quality and pollution prior to the arrival of the industry. I cannot know from the little that I have read whether the industry contributed to that. But the description of his environment being pristine and the water quality being fine prior to the arrival of the gas industry is not accurate according to the American EPA.
I do not doubt that he is a passionate man. He is obviously travelling the world discussing this sort of thing and has clearly had some experiences, but the science is uncertain around it and there are other aspects to his claims which draw them into reasonable question.
I have listened very carefully and read as much as I possibly can. There have been mistakes, especially with the fracking fluids that have been used. There were a number of spills in the United States, in Pennsylvania, where there was surface water contamination, but not because of the fracking. It was because the fracking fluids were spilled at the surface level due to poor practices. The fracking fluids that were being used in the Pennsylvania region, where these issues came up, were spilled on the surface and then there was some groundwater leeching. The actual fracking was not the cause of any pollution.
It is clear that an industry of this nature should be very carefully monitored and regulated. As should any industry that leaves a substantial environmental footprint. We do it for open cut mines, underground mines and any number of sources, but that does not mean we should automatically shut the whole thing down or even impose a moratorium. I am satisfied with what I have seen proposed in the Northern Territory, and the circumstances of fracking here are different to other jurisdictions; it is primarily based on depth.
With the coal seam gas being drilled in Queensland, one of the seams was at surface level. That is not a practice we are advocating in the Northern Territory. I also understand the seams were not far below the water table and were measured in hundreds of feet. As we heard from the Chief Minister, our starting position in this jurisdiction is 2500 ft going to a depth of 9000 ft. There are many impermeable layers of rock.
I heard the comment by the member for Karama that there are 55 000 wells proposed. That might be the case, but a well does not need to be deeply intrusive, in the sense that the footprint it leaves behind is a small concrete plug you can grow a plant on top of. The shaft underneath is what you have to protect. The shaft casing – if it happens to go through a water table – is reinforced with steel, concrete, steel, concrete, and so on. It goes from a drill hole of four or five inches in diameter to an actual shaft casing of about 18 inches to 2 ft, which is a substantial difference and will survive many years without degradation. Once oil is drilled, the gas is extracted and the truck drives away or the equipment is pulled out of there. The small working area can be easily rehabilitated and the well can be plugged. All of these things are technical issues which can be achieved.
I am delighted we live in a world where it is possible within my lifetime, almost certainly within my daughters’ lifetimes, that we will find sources of energy which are so abundant that it will make the reliance on hydrocarbons seems antiquated and quaint. There is research being done right now in a number of countries.
The national fusion institute in California has now sustained a fusion reaction for about a femtosecond, and it delivered more energy out than what went in. The whole organisation of it, unfortunately, meant there was still more energy being used, but it is an important step in the right direction.
Various countries, including France developing the tokamak reactors, are now reporting longer and more sustainable fusion reactions. These are massive and expensive machines. Finally, when we get to the point where we can sustain such a reaction, the conversation we are having in this room will become redundant. Imagine a world where you can leave your air conditioner running all day because it will cost you 5c maximum because you are paying for the network and generation of the power. Your environmental footprint will be next to zero.
We cannot, as a community, simply stop growing while we wait for these technical advances to occur, as confident I am that even in my lifetime we will see them occur. By necessity, we leave a footprint on the environment as a species. We do so on a daily basis as we grow and expand our horizons. What should that environmental footprint look like as we continue to consume energy, which is expensive and has an effect on the environment in which we live? Should we continue to use coal or crude oil?
It is interesting to note that we are in a parliament which is lit by gas drawn, as I understand it, from fracked wells. The gas that was produced by Mereenie for all those years was pulled out of the rock in Central Australia and piped up here. It was designed and built to replace the diesel we were burning at the Stokes Hill power station that was around the corner from this building, and which I remember operating when I was a kid.
Our environmental and carbon footprints, as a result of using the gas we have drawn from the Mereenie field and now from the Eni fields at Blacktip, are about half what it would be if we were burning oil or coal. I am not aware that we have ever burnt coal in this jurisdiction and I do not believe I would be a great advocate if we did.
We cannot take the Malthusian world view where we simply say it is all bad, bad, bad. Even if we provide an abundance for ourselves it will be at the expense of our future. When Malthus described the suffering that humanity would undergo as a result of the increasing abundance of food supply, meaning that more of us would be living in the same poverty, it was probably correct but for one very important truth. The one very important truth Malthus could not have known about – because his comments were in the pre-industrial age – was that technology would change in such a way that the standards of living through the pursuit of technology, and better forms of energy, would lead to standards of living being increased throughout the world, and continuing to be increased even today.
I note that a recent UN report made the observation that for the first time in human history less than 10% of the world’s population is now living in abject poverty. That is a much better situation than almost 100% of the world’s population living in abject poverty 1000 years ago. It is certainly a much better situation than my childhood, when many more people lived in abject poverty.
Through the experience of expanding our industry and our world, we have seen China, in the space of a few decades, go through the exploitation of energy and resources at its fingertips, lifting more people out of poverty than any other period in human history.
A name that will probably be forgotten to human history is Deng Xiaoping. He should, in my opinion, be the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize because he created an environment where 300 million people, by using energy and the resources around them, were able to lift themselves out of poverty and create health and wellbeing hitherto unconceived in China.
It is well and good to point out examples of where things have gone backwards, but if you want to look at the …
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Stranger in the House.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I believe it is a technician from the Legislative Assembly.
Mr ELFERINK: We have to continue exploiting those resources around us until such time as our technology takes us in a new direction. If it is true that we will drill 55 000 wells then we will be dropping 10% on the wells that the United States has drilled across the US and North America – it also intrudes into Canada. If we are capable of producing 10% of the energy that was produced by the whole of the United States since its adoption of this technology, we would be fools of the most extreme order to ignore those possibilities. However, having made that observation, we have to be careful. By creating a regulatory environment and creating inclusion rather than exclusion zones, we are doing what is necessary to be careful.
If we are against the notion of an environmental footprint then we are against any form of mine. There are always environmental footprints. If we are against the notion that humanity should have any footprint on the environment at all, we should not have roads, schools, hospitals or houses, and we should live in yurts and eat yoghurt. But nobody is suggesting that.
To simply say, ‘No, let’s not do it. It is all wrong; we must resist this’, in the face of such potential abundance, and in light of the history of our species where the pursuit of abundance has created wealth and health beyond the wildest imaginations of the generations that have preceded us, would be a folly and would not be a wise way to step forward.
Let us not be ashamed to exploit the resources available. Let us be cautious and careful in that exploitation, but, nevertheless, step forward. It is the capacity to embrace those resources that has led to such enormous impacts on us as a species on the face of the planet. It will not be long before we leave the planet and start going to other places, as we are starting to see in the development of missions to nearby planets, such as Mars.
We have to embrace the notion that we can pursue our forward steps as a species safely. We can do it through the exploitation of resources and the development of technologies that have, as a general principle, made the quality of living across the world, Australia and the Northern Territory better. We would be mugs to step away from this because we were afraid. Yes, be careful, but let us not be afraid.
Mr KURRUPUWU (Arafura): Mr Deputy Speaker, when in government, Michael Gunner and the Labor Party allowed permits and applications for over 95% of the Northern Territory, including places of cultural significance. Our government has removed this from environmentally sensitive and culturally significant areas, as well as setting no-go areas for onshore gas exploration, areas deemed culturally sensitive, residential areas or areas of high environmental value.
Onshore gas development can only occur with the approval of traditional owners and land owners. The Country Liberals believe that traditional owners should have the right to decide if mining and explorations happen on their land. If they decide they do not want to allow companies to extract resources from their land then that is their right. The Country Liberals believe that when traditional owners want to negotiate with the company to allow them access to their land in return for the creation of local jobs and a royalty system, it is their right.
Unlike those opposite, we believe the best people to decide what happens on traditional lands are the traditional owners. The Country Liberals will continue to support traditional owners, whatever their decision may be. Thank you.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, with the issue of fracking it is not always easy for people to sort the truths from the untruths. In many cases it is a mixture. I have worked my way through many issues relating to this ever since the previous Minister for Mines and Energy discussed this matter in the very early days of this parliament. I remember saying to him, ‘You need to be on the front foot’. There are people who will have a different point of view and they will certainly promote that, as is their right in a democracy.
I have been trying to get a balanced viewpoint about fracking. There have been some changes in the government’s attitude towards fracking from the days when we first talked about it. At least we started on the right foot by having Dr Allan Hawke set up an important inquiry, which I found difficult to believe had not been read by the President of the Labor Party when he was introduced on ABC. It is no good saying this document is no good if you have not read it.
This document is an important start to the discussion, whether you are for or against. If you look at the back pages you will find that 263 people, communities, associations and businesses commented or put submissions into the Hawke inquiry, so you can least say that people in the Northern Territory were able to give their viewpoints about fracking.
From that inquiry a series of recommendations was made, but in following that up I ask people if they have read Hawke’s second report, the Review of the Northern Territory Environmental Assessment and Approval Processes. It is a really important document which you have to read to find out what is going on in this field. From that – I have had these on my table at my office – came the Onshore Oil and Gas Guiding Principles, and people were asked to comment. A number of factsheets were handed out about various impacts on water, agreements with pastoralists, and the environment. From that came the draft Petroleum (Environment) Regulations. I am not sure whether they are still out for comment. I have not read this document, but it is important, but Dr Tina Hunter has read it.
In March this year she reviewed the draft Petroleum (Environment) Regulations. I have tried to look at these issues as open-mindedly as possible. Dr Tina Hunter is the Associate Professor of Energy Law and the co-director at the Centre for Energy Law at the University of Aberdeen. She spoke to the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association conference on 17 and 18 March this year in Alice Springs. Her topic was the balance between petroleum resource development and pastoral industry sustainability. The question was, is the NT regulatory framework robust enough to accommodate coexistence?
Some of the concerns she had are the same concerns I have. I am not saying that fracking does not have issues. We are working through a process which I hope will pick up some of the issues, concerns and malpractices – if I can say that – in other countries.
Dr Hunter has come from an environment where there was a moratorium at one stage, the United Kingdom. From what I have read, this was because companies were able to tick the box because there was either one person or no one checking the wells that were being drilled.
I have a PowerPoint presentation, but unfortunately I have not had time to download – I do not have a media section, but I have her speech to the Cattlemen’s Association conference on a memory stick. I have not had time to get that typed.
I can go on with some of the things she said in this document – ‘Put out of your mind the issues you have heard of in the USA, the Gasland phenomenon’. She asked why the two industries are in conflict and talked about petroleum versus pastoralism. She also talked about the risks. I agree; included in some of the risks I would be concerned about are water resources. She said that fracking is not the issue, as fracking itself is not the form or origin of contamination. It is the surface contamination that can be the issue.
You can store chemicals on the ground, but you have to ensure those chemicals are not released into the ground water. The ground water in shale is a lot closer than the gas is to the possibility of contamination. She talks about the use and contamination of water resources and protection through well construction. They are all issues that I am concerned about.
I am pleased that one good thing has come from the government; water extraction will not be exempt from the Water Act. That is an important change. We know the issues in Mataranka, and some of the issues in relation to water use were not necessarily about the water licences provided by the government. There were companies mining further down the Roper River and there was little control over the water consumption. It is a good thing the Water Act will now cover water from mining sites.
Well integrity is important to ensure the well is as sealed as possible to try to reduce methane – the release of the greenhouse gas methane is a problem with fracking – and ensure there is no contamination from above.
I do not think the issue has gone away. If we are to ensure the integrity of wells is actioned, as it should be, they need to be designed and constructed with inspection by the department.
It is no different to when the floor of this building was poured. There would have been a building inspector to ensure the concrete was the right consistency, the slab had reinforcing rods in it, ARC mesh, and it could not be ticked off by the company; it had to be an independent inspector.
We need to ensure if that is not done there are adequate penalties. I know that there are penalties under the Petroleum Act, but we need to give confidence to people by ensuring the regulations in place are more than just typing on a piece of paper, and that those regulations are carried out to the letter of the law. If they are not, I will not support this industry.
The industry has to ensure, as Tina Hunter said, that the decisions it makes take into account both the long- and short-term economic, environmental, social and equitable considerations. She talks about the precautionary principles, the principles of intergenerational equity, the conservation of biological diversity and improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms which should be promoted.
I heard the Minister for Mines and Energy talk about the benefits, which is fine. The benefits, hopefully, will be advantageous for the Northern Territory, but we must always keep sustainability in mind. An industry that is sustainable is one that, in the future, does not cost.
The good professor also talks about the principle of ALARP – reduce risk as low as reasonably practicable. She quoted the definition of ‘reasonably practicable’ from a Court of Appeal ruling:
- ‘Reasonably practicable’ is a narrower term than ‘physically possible’ and seems to me to imply that a computation must be made by the owner, in which the quantum of risk is placed on one scale and the sacrifice involved in the measures necessary for averting the risk (whether in money, time or trouble) is placed in the other; and that if it be shown that there is a gross disproportion between them – the risk being insignificant in relation to the sacrifice – the defendants discharge the onus on them.
I cannot speak for everything she has in here, but she comments on the moratorium. I am reading from the notes, where she says, ‘It is not the answer. We need a scientific approach and knowledge basis as the answer.’
I have some other issues with it. We need to take into account – the member for Port Darwin said 55 000 wells. I spoke to John Fenton yesterday, who seems a decent sort of fellow. He lives in Wyoming and he showed me pictures of what a large number of wells looks like. There is an issue with what effect this will have on the aesthetics of the environment. People might say that 55 000 wind turbines could affect the landscape as well.
For me the issue is that if you go ahead with this, when they finish their life, what will you do to bring the landscape back to what it was before? You will never bring it back perfectly. Will you fix the roads? The key issue which has not been answered is what the regulations or process will be to ensure these wells are capped and sealed. My understanding – and I have not heard from anyone yet – is that we are yet to come up with a design for capping wells that have finished their life. I raised this at the AFANT meeting and got a fairly broad answer from the CEO of Mines. It was not satisfactory because this issue is just as important as building the wells and what will happen to them when you finish with them.
I am not saying I give the big tick to fracking. I have concerns about whether we should use all our gas or leave some of it in the ground. I would hate it to get to the stage where we sell our gas offshore and find we have none left and need to buy it back at higher prices. I am not sure why we cannot leave some of the gas in the ground for when we might need it.
Mr Elferink: We want to pump it into Australia.
Mr WOOD: It is in the ground. If you are selling it then you are not keeping it for us; you are selling it to another country.
Mr Elferink: It is going to Mount Isa and on to the gas supply.
Mr WOOD: In discussions with the Minister for Mines and Energy the money we get from selling our gas was mentioned. I believe we should keep some of our gas reserved for when we need it.
Mr Elferink: I am pretty sure we are building a pipeline ...
Mr WOOD: It is like eating your cake and having nothing left. I do not have time to pick up on the interjections, but I raise that as an issue. Gas is important, as much as we would like other forms of energy when it comes to cooking and eating. I am sure if you live in Alice Springs or Tennant Creek in the winter you would want something to warm the house. You will not necessarily do it with solar. We need gas, but we need to develop this very carefully. I think we are at least going down that path.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am a little disappointed, but probably not surprised that the member for Karama has chosen the issue of fracking to dog-whistle to people in her electorate and more broadly across the NT.
It is a bit sad that the member for Karama has stooped to this. I expected better from her. She apparently has been caught up in all the hysteria around the issue of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking as it is colloquially known across the globe.
I ask a rhetorical question. The member for Karama is so incensed by hydraulic fracturing and the issues around it. Why is this an issue now and not when she was the Deputy Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, a senior minister in the Labor government, a member of parliament from 2001 until now, or for the 11 years the Labor Party was in power? Why is it an issue now but was not an issue when she was in a position to call the fracking industry to account? Why now?
It goes back to my opening remark about dog-whistling to the community and her electorate. She sees this as an opportunity to grab some popular support around a very contentious, yet misunderstood issue in Australia and the Northern Territory. For that, I am profoundly disappointed in the member for Karama.
As we well know, fracking has been around the globe for a very long time. I did a little research on this and I understand fracking, in its very early stages, commenced in the 1800s when explosives – nitroglycerin or dynamite – were used in the process to release more oil from oil-bearing rocks deep underground. That effectively meant drilling a well, running it until the oil flow stopped or slowed, then dropping a stick of gelignite down the hole, blowing it up and allowing more gas to release. That is my understanding of the very early fracking operations.
Of course, things have changed since then. The industry now employs the use of water, chemicals and sand, under very high pressure, to …
Mr Elferink: Occasionally coffee grounds and walnut shells.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: That is right, and fracture rocks, in the case of deep shale, deep underground. The composition of that is 90% water, about 9.5% sand – the sand is used as a proppant, which is something that holds the cracks or fissures once that fracture has occurred – and about 0.5% of the fracking fluid is a bunch of chemicals. I understand in some jurisdictions in the United States they are allowed to use particularly nasty chemicals that they call BTEX chemicals – benzene, toluene and another two I cannot remember the names of.
Those chemicals have been banned from use in the Northern Territory. The chemicals used in fracking operations in the Territory, and in Australia, are relatively benign. I do not think that is the issue; the big issue around fracking is the potential for contaminants to enter the water.
If you peel away the layers to the core issue, I think most people have concerns about the effect this industry could have on the water supply, water tables and surface water.
Before I explain more about that and my understanding of it, I want to go back in history to what happened in the Territory. In 2012 the Hunter report came out – by Tina Hunter who has already been referred to by members of the House – which was a reflection upon the Labor government’s regulatory regime prior to 2012. The report suggested that a huge amount of work was needed on the regulatory regime.
When the Country Liberals came to government we took on board the recommendations of the Hunter report and redoubled our efforts to improve the regulatory regime in the Northern Territory. We went nationally and internationally to look at the very best regulatory environments that we could find, including those of the United States. Not only did we look for the best regulations, we also looked for what went wrong.
As a jurisdiction, through our regulatory process, we could significantly reduce the risk of those types of events happening – those bad things that have happened. The Department of Mines and Energy has been doggedly marching on with that process for a few years.
We got to the point where the furore was building around the oil and gas industry, so this government commissioned Dr Allan Hawke to do some work, listen to the community and hear what it has to say, and understand the issues in the Northern Territory context. I read his report, but I have not read it in a while so I cannot refer to it in fine detail. He basically said fracking in the Northern Territory is okay as long as there is a robust regulatory environment. That is what we have been working towards. This government has taken a number of huge steps to ensure the regulatory environment is tough enough to ensure we minimise all risk to the environment.
The member for Nelson referred to the report also. Dr Tina Hunter looked at our proposed regulations and came up with a dozen or so tweaks that will be taken on board by the department and the government when implementing those new regulations. We are heading towards the very best regulatory environment we can possibly have to safeguard water in the Northern Territory. I am just using that as the nub. That is the central issue most people seem to have.
While that process has been ongoing, the government has taken some policy decisions around how we deal with the oil and gas industry. I refer to this diagram of the Northern Territory. This is a representation of the petroleum permits we inherited from the Labor government in 2012. About 96% of the Territory was either under application or granted tenure for oil and gas. Just remember, the member for Karama, who is now bitterly complaining about the oil and gas industry, was a part of the government that allowed this situation to develop. I will seek leave at the end of my speech to table this document. It comes off the CORE website for the Department of Mines and Energy and is freely available to the public.
That was in a regulatory environment – 96% of the Territory under application or granted tenure – that was acknowledged by Dr Tina Hunter as sadly lacking. We inherited that and we moved immediately to improve and increase the work being done on that regulatory environment. We got to a point where we can say – I have another diagram – that this is now granted tenure. This document is also freely available on the CORE website, which lends credence to what the Chief Minister and the Minister for Mines and Energy said last year about a go-slow. We put everything on hold. Let us take a breath and see what happens.
In the meantime we are, as a government working through the department, trying to work out how we can safeguard areas of the Northern Territory from an industry that perhaps should not be in certain parts of the Territory. The Katherine Town Council, because it was lobbied heavily and was filled with members who had very strong opinions about the oil and gas industry, wanted the municipal boundary of Katherine to be declared a reserve area. The government railed against that, and there was a good reason for it. Setting a municipal boundary as the boundary where oil and gas activity cannot occur was not good enough or robust enough, so we moved to extend it.
We moved to ensure areas outside of the town boundary got the protection they needed. That is when the Chief Minister announced last year, I think it was 18 November, in a press release – he talked about residential areas being protected, including rural residential, areas of high agricultural value, areas of cultural significance and areas that it is important to protect in an environmental sense. Those areas in the Katherine context do not reside within the municipal boundary.
I am sitting in a hot bed of concern about the oil and gas industry and fracking in Katherine, so I am under a lot of pressure. I am talking to the Minister for Mines and Energy and the Chief Minister about a solution, and between us, with great help from the Department of Mines and Energy, we came up with a much better model of protecting areas that need to be protected rather than going by the municipal boundary.
As happened in the Adelaide River area with the member for Daly, I have also worked with the Chief Minister to ensure areas around Katherine that must be protected will be protected from exploitation in the oil and gas industry. That was a must for me and I have worked extremely hard to ensure that happens.
This is an important matter to discuss, but not in the context in which the member for Karama has raised it tonight. That is cheap politicking. Let us work on a solution that ensures we can have a strong economy into the future with a diverse group of industries – the oil and gas industry being one of them – driving the economic development of the Territory whilst ensuring the environment is protected.
There is so much more I could say, but I only have a couple of minutes left. There is a lot of hysteria around the gas industry, with a lot of misinformation being promulgated, picked up by the member for Karama in putting together this MPI. The member for Port Darwin mentioned the movie Gasland. Gasland was a classic example of a successful attempt at stirring up hysteria around the oil and gas industry. Gas coming out of the tap and being lit is a compelling picture.
He mentioned something the Colorado Department of Natural Resources said, which was never reported in the movie because it was an inconvenient truth. The Markham and McClure wells:
- … contained biogenic gas that was not related to oil and gas activity.
Biogenic gas, as opposed to thermogenic gas, is something you would find if there was a fracking operation causing it. In 1976 that department also found a concerning amount of methane in local water supplies. This is something that happens naturally across the globe. Gas is a naturally occurring substance, as is water. Where the two come together, sometimes you get a mix of both.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am very disappointed in the member for Karama. I wish I had much longer to talk about this. Perhaps if there is a ministerial statement, I will take the opportunity to do so.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Karama for bringing forward a matter of public importance that is essentially about the Territory’s natural resources. Every member of this parliament, either Indigenous or non-Indigenous, is a custodian of our Northern Territory’s natural resources, with a great responsibility. Anyone who has not been in their electorates, amongst constituents, talking about the issue of exploration of onshore oil and gas is not doing their job. This certainly is a matter of public importance.
I would like to reflect on history and make some comments on the CLP’s management of the Territory’s natural resources. I remember an estimates process where I was questioning the then minister for natural resources on increased budget appropriations for the studies of hydrology, geology and the Territory’s natural resources in the lead up to any movement in exploration for onshore oil and gas. I was treated with contempt, but that was the CLP’s benchmark, which we have become familiar with as an opposition.
That minister is no longer a minister, he is a disgraced ex-minister. I am very disappointed in him because his dismissal compromises every decision he ever made in those ministries. That ex-minister is disgraced and is on the back bench.
I followed that minister’s work because there was some important work occurring. This issue was of great concern to me because through two budget estimates processes the analysis then became about the CLP government, which appropriated over $1m to golf clubs in Alice Springs and Katherine. The allocation to further studies into natural resources in the 2015-16 budget estimate was $41 129, but the actual was $40 772.
Surely if we are embarking on a frontier industry in Northern Australia we would see significant budget appropriations towards studying a scientific approach to doing this properly. I have been privileged to be a member of the Committee on the Northern Territory’s Energy Future, where we have been researching amazing material and fantastic learnings. But we had a government that was all talk and no action, which was fleshed out in the estimates processes.
The member for Katherine is now trying to rewrite history. Give credit where credit is due; the CLP started to follow Labor’s lead. The CLP realised public sentiment was serious and concerned. They discovered that they had better do something about it before going headlong into the unknown.
I do not give a damn about what the members tonight have said about America and Russia; this is about the Northern Territory. This is new country. This is frontier, alternative, deep oil and gas.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! How long will the moratorium be?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.
Mr McCARTHY: The Minister for Business stood in this House today and said he wants the Northern Territory to be the epicentre of the oil and gas industry. That is the minister’s desire. We have not seen any initiative in this area. We have seen the CLP follow Labor’s lead and now try to play catch-up football.
The Minister for Business, in a contribution to a debate about reducing red tape, said the gas is trapped between two layers of impervious rock, and he gave us a hand gesture to show us what that looks like. He then went on to say, ‘There is lots of it down there’.
This Minister for Business desires to capture all these proposed opportunities for the Northern Territory, and he uses a hand gesture and a couple of cheap quotes. There was no talk of geology or hydrology, and no understanding of fractures or fault lines. There was no understanding of well integrity. There were only one-liners in a cheap contribution to a debate in terms of trying to score political points. This about the Territory’s natural resources, and Labor’s position with a moratorium is clear and defined.
We have to look at resources, and the disgraced member for Katherine, the disgraced minister for natural resources – Northern Territory Supreme Court’s decision directed the minister to reassess the analysis of water allocations, based on science. The Supreme Court declared that the minister had erred and he had to review 18 water allocations. This is an example of trust. It does not matter what the CLP says; nobody trusts you anymore. Nobody believes you anymore. You can say what you like, but nobody trusts the CLP and nobody believes a word the Chief Minister says.
I sat in a very interesting rally last night, which was organised by the Northern Territory Lock the Gate Alliance. I witnessed around 60 to 80 people, who looked like articulate, well-presented Territorians and who I expected to be CLP supporters, lay scorn on the CLP. It was about a very important NT natural resources issue, but it was also about people who have lost trust in this government and do not believe what government is saying.
This CLP government has a rush on economic development and is pitting natural resources against each other. The development of one industry at the expense of another is not good economic or social policy. Now it is a game of catch-up football to try to get this across the line. The member for Karama has called this out.
I believe the general election in 2016 will define this. This will be an election issue, and it is. This government, which had no plans to appropriate the much-needed resources into the study of our natural resources, is now playing catch-up football to follow the Labor Party lead and is disgraced. It has no trust and lacks integrity, and Territorians will make their decision.
This is a very important matter of public importance. I will talk briefly about my communication with the pastoral sector, which is now dealing with land access issues, accountability of industry issues, coexistence issues of industry – where beef cattle are processed, run and grown – and the issue of compensation. There are some very interesting discussions that the ministers on the other side of the House need to be aware of. These negotiations are happening as we speak and there are far more questions than answers.
Let us look at what Labor will do. Territory Labor has a proud record of fighting to protect our natural resources and implementing world-leading environmental protection in government. Territory Labor understands good environment policy is smart economic and social policy. Territory Labor in government will create a comprehensive environmental protection framework, strengthen the Environment Protection Authority and establish an office of independent scientists. This framework will restore integrity and transparency for environmental approval and monitoring, ensuring development is environmentally and economically sustainable, and give business and industry confidence to invest and create jobs.
Territory Labor will transfer all environmental assessment, oversight and enforcement powers to the department of the Environment and the Environment Protection Authority, properly funding these enforcement bodies to do the work. Territory Labor will restore funding to non-government organisations and environmental watchdogs, such as the Environment Centre NT and the Arid Lands Environment Centre.
Territory Labor’s energy policy embraces, encourages and invests in existing and emerging renewable technology, encouraging development of renewable energy programs for remote communities to reduce reliance on diesel fuel. Territory Labor will promote the development of renewable energy in urban areas to reduce the cost of power to households and the Territory’s carbon footprint.
Territory Labor recognises the importance and community concern about hydraulic fracturing for gas from deep shale and tight rock formations. Territory Labor will consider all factors associated with industry viability, including sustainable employment, environmental impacts, science-based research, coexistence with agricultural activities and landholder rights.
Considering all factors associated with development of an onshore shale gas industry, Territory Labor proposes a moratorium covering all unconventional gas prospecting, exploration and extraction activities. During the moratorium, Territory Labor will establish an independent expert advisory panel to undertake a scientific inquiry, including a peer review of the unconventional gas industry and reported field impacts. The inquiry will include critical baseline ground water and surface water studies, baseline fugitive emissions data collection, fault line mapping, baseline health impact assessments and identification of priority areas as no-go zones. The panel will consist of reputable experts from fields covering environmental and biological science, water resources, eco toxicology, workforce planning, petroleum regulation and public health.
Territory Labor will undertake a comprehensive community consultation process across all regions, engaging relevant stakeholder and community groups through a research process, influencing any final decisions. This position from Territory Labor is the responsible, smart position and what the CLP is trying to play catch-up on. This position is a clear policy on making sure any natural resources in the development of the Northern Territory and northern Australia are protected. It will not be a CLP rush, looking for a signature economic project like the pipeline between Tennant Creek and Mount Isa.
This will be in the interests of all Territorians; this recognises traditional owners, our communities and the people who live in urban areas. Essentially this recognises Territorians.
This is what Territorians are listening to; it is what they want and it will be delivered by a future Labor government if judged worthy by Territorians. The member for Karama has introduced this matter of public importance and it has been rejected by the Chief Minister. It will go to the Northern Territory general election in 2016 and be judged accordingly.
Mr Elferink: How will the moratorium be?
Mr McCARTHY: Unfortunately for the CLP, in three-and-a-half years you have trashed your brand, lost the trust of Territorians and lost integrity. Therefore, you will be judged accordingly. This issue is one of many issues, but the Territory’s natural resources are finite. We have been given custody of them as members of this House. This would seriously be a bipartisan issue if it were not for the arrogance of this government and its punitive nature. It will be judged accordingly by Territorians; make no bones about that.
There is talk in this House by politicians masquerading as mining engineers and analysts, saying, ‘I have read this and I have read that’. This is about the Northern Territory and you should understand that. There is no excuse for ignorance as a member of parliament.
Mr Elferink: How long is the moratorium? Tell us that.
Mr McCARTHY: The interjections from the member for Port Darwin are pathetic. Labor’s policy is stated very clearly and I hope the Territory judges it to be fair and worthy because we will protect and we will develop the Territory sustainably and safely. We will and the member for Port Darwin will not.
Mr STYLES (Deputy Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, I was not going to add to this debate, but I cannot help myself with some of the statements made by the member for Barkly. He was just indicating to this side of the Chamber and suggesting that politicians here are trying to be miners, engineers and experts.
I really struggle to understand – he is supporting the member for Karama, who brought this motion to this House and said, ‘I have been out talking to people and learning a lot’. Then she went on to say all sorts of things about what she has learnt from talking to some people.
We got Dr Allan Hawke, who is probably one of the most respected people in this country, to review all the previous reviews, and then he said, ‘I want this whole report of mine peer assessed’. He did not just say, ‘Here is the report’. In his recommendations he states that he wants it peer assessed.
Obviously the other side of the House does not listen, because I have already said this in this House. Nine countries sent their experts from around the world – environmental protection authorities and chief scientists from various organisations and countries were in Sydney in September 2015 to peer assess someone who had done an assessment of all the previous reports.
They all endorsed the fact there is no justification for a moratorium on fracking in the Northern Territory if you follow the recommendations. For a member to stand on the opposition side of this Chamber and accuse us of wanting to be engineers and miners – and the very person sitting behind that member is the person who introduced this into this Chamber – is a bit hypocritical. I just do not know where they get their thoughts from.
The member for Barkly talked about looking after our natural resources. We are in competition with the states next to us. What advice will the member for Barkly give to his Labor colleagues in Queensland and South Australia who are begging to get this investment and these jobs into their state? Why does the Leader of the Opposition – the one-man wrecking ball in the Northern Territory – come into this House and say, ‘I will have a moratorium on fracking and go against every other Labor state; I will go against all the Labor people in federal politics and go against industry and all the learned scientists in the world’?
The member for Barkly has the gall to say that we are trying to be miners and scientists, and whatever he said in addition to that. The Leader of the Opposition comes in and says, ‘I am not listening to that’. The President of the Labor Party commented on the moratorium when the Leader of the Opposition disappeared out of town, the day after he made his commitment to a moratorium on fracking. He said, ‘We will do this’, and was then asked if he read the report, to which he said, ‘No, I do not need to’. I think he said something along the lines of, ‘I do not agree with it’.
Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is doing, just not agreeing with the science? And he wants to see more science. We also heard from the member for Nightcliff, who said a couple of months ago, ‘We want to see the science’. We then gave them the information and they said, ‘Oh, maybe we should read that’. I do not know if they have read either of the Hawke reports, and I do not know what has been going on over there. The rhetoric has changed a little.
I heard someone from that side – I think the Leader of the Opposition – say something like, ‘We want to look at how it impacts on the Northern Territory’. The member for Barkly said that I did not go into a geological explanation about what is going on. I thought it would be appropriate for some young people, older people and people who are not engineers or miners – and I am no expert – to get a basic report, which was given to me by people who understand this stuff. An impervious level – here are the hand gestures again, member for Barkly; one on the bottom and one on the top. There is a lot of shale gas between these two impervious layers of rock, and there is no water in there. It is a simple explanation, and I am not trying to be an engineer or geologist.
The other point made by the member for Barkly was, ‘No one believes the government’. You do not have to believe us. All we are doing is espousing what the recognised world experts are saying. Dr Allan Hawke is respected on both sides of politics and is a former chief of staff for former Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating. He has worked in the industry for many years. He is a trusted source for the Labor Party. The member for Nelson spoke about Tina Hunter, an expert in these matters, who said fracking is not the issue. The issue is in the regulations.
It is amazing that these people have not read this stuff, yet they say we should not do this or that. I say to the member for Barkly and members opposite, you do not have to listen to us if you choose not to. But the science is there. There are people who are not on our side, Labor’s side or anyone else’s side all saying the same thing. That is who we are listening to. We are not pretending to be miners, engineers or experts. We are listening to the experts.
I would rather listen to the world experts and those from across this nation and the world who have not only talked to a few people but have recognised qualifications and experience in these issues than the member for Karama, who said, ‘I have spoken to a few people’.
Mr Chandler: Any day.
Mr STYLES: Any day. Not just one expert, but experts from across the world. The point needs to be made – and I accept that the member for Karama has spoken to a few people and has some concerns – that when she says that all this is fact, then I challenge some of that.
She talked about a man from Wyoming, who has a problem with gas coming out of the ground. I spoke to a gentleman recently who is a truckie, and he used to cart material into Moomba. He was talking about fracking and he told me that 30 years ago, when he was trucking into the Moomba site in South Australia, when he had a shower it smelled of gas. He made some inquiries. In Moomba this gas comes out of the shale rock and leaches out of the ground naturally. When you walk around Moomba you can smell this gas.
There are so many things we hear from the members opposite that do not seem to add up when you look at the science from around the world. I accept that some people say it is terrible and that kids are suffering. If that is the case, something should be done about it. But I understand it is a different form of gas exploration there and we have a totally different system here.
The member for Barkly also said we have a new type of drilling – I did not quite get the words – and something is new about this. It is not. We have been doing this for nearly 50 years in the Northern Territory. Labor in South Australia supports shale gas extraction and they have been at it for about the same amount of time with no incidents. Labor in South Australia is saying it does not have a problem with the fracking of shale gas. Labor in Queensland does not have a problem with fracking shale gas there. They have some issues with coal seam gas, but that is different.
Bill Shorten, I am told, cannot understand what the Leader of the Opposition in the Northern Territory is doing. He is out of step with everyone else around this country and the experts of the world. I cannot understand that, and the question needs to be put to him time and again until he answers it. Why will he not take the worldwide science? Why does he want another inquiry? How long will the moratorium be? What will happen?
I hear the member for Barkly say they want to have an inquiry and ensure they can get it right. I can assure you, member for Barkly, those jobs will not be there. You cannot introduce sovereign risk into an equation when you talk about various things like this. I heard you talk in your statement about the moratorium, and I will check the Hansard, something about how you will stop exploration and extraction activities. My understanding from that statement is that you will shut down the onshore gas industry. If the words I think I heard are correct and you shut down extraction activities, it means you will shut down onshore gas in the Northern Territory while you have this inquiry.
That means that the lights will off in Alice Springs, Tennant Creek and Yulara, which will be disgraceful.
Mr McCarthy: Rubbish.
Mr STYLES: Well, you said it and I will check.
Mr McCarthy: Read the Hansard.
Mr STYLES: I will read the Hansard because I thought that was what I heard. You will shut down an industry and those people will choose to go elsewhere in the world. Businesses operate like that; they will not sit and wait for any of us to make a decision.
When the science is in, it is irrefutable. But you then say you want another inquiry because you are looking for something that suggests you are right. You have not been able to find one for years, but you are still looking for someone who will say this is terrible. But the science is in and it is there for all to read.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask that all members reject this matter of public importance.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to talk about a couple of things that have been happening in my electorate. The first is that the Aussie rules football season for the Top End has concluded, as we know. We had some terrific games played by many teams, including the sensational women’s final between the Waratahs and the Wanderers. Okay, the men’s final was sensational too, with the Saints taking out the flag again, because it is such a gun team with some stunning football manoeuvres and good goal keeping, just pipping the Wanderers to the post in taking the finals flag.
As with most years, Top End footy, including the footy on the Tiwi Islands, provides much entertainment to many people, young and old, and lots of visitors.
I will focus briefly on the exploits of the Southern Districts Football Club, especially the Under 12 side at its grand final game. The finals game was between Southern Districts and Nightcliff, and provided the highlight of the NTFL junior grand final day. The Crocs’ Under 12 side lived out a dream when it won the Atkinson division grand final from a near impossible position. Down by eight points in the last quarter to the Nightcliff side, which had dominated since the start of the second quarter, the Crocs snapped their collective jaws and pounced, as only a ferocious crocodile can on its prey.
I am told that not even the sight of the timekeeper with his hand on the button to signal the end of the game could stop two lightning-quick raids into the forward line and two match-winning goals. The young players, I am told, never gave up and it is a credit to them and their coach, supporters and families that they continued to fight for the glory of the finals cup.
Coach Jason Grace said, ‘They were never out of the hunt’. He knew the boys could pull off the win. He went on to say, ‘They all have big hearts and can play all day’.
Coach Jason spoke to the young fellas at three-quarter time and said, ‘This is it. It is the last bit of the season, the finals push.’ And they came back magnificently. Coach Jason said Patrick Snell at fullback, and later on wing, was by far his side’s best player, followed by Rohan Bailey and Jack Brown through the midfield.
The team put in their best effort on the day and reaped the rewards of dedicated training, hard work, a bit of sweat and maybe a hand from Lady Luck. Well done to the Under 12 team and a big thank you to Jason Grace for giving up his time to coach the team and take them through to the finals and the history books. Big congratulations to the Southern Districts Football Club, including president Sam Eyles, the committee, players, coaches and volunteers, who turn up every week in the footy season to do what it takes to have a successful, popular and well-regarded footy club.
I turn my attention to another fast and furious sport undertaken in the rural area: polocrosse. For the uninitiated, this game is not polo and not lacrosse, but a combination of both. It is mostly played in the rural area and we have 100 to 150 people who play this sport in the Top End. We have five clubs. It started in the NT just before Cyclone Tracy when a group of interested people got together and was looking to set it up here. They met in Marrara and relocated the main base of polocrosse games to Freds Pass, as many of us know.
As I speak, the Australian polocrosse nationals are being held in Albury. They started on 18 April and go until this Sunday. We have teams who have gone there: an open senior mixed tristate team; an Under 21 mixed tristate team; a junior girls’ tristate team; and an open men’s team. Given that we are a small jurisdiction we do not have the luxury of providing all team members to a specific team, which is why we have mixed tristate teams. Players come from other states and they play in a combined team.
When these teams and players go interstate it is a long haul for them. Many of them take their own horses and floats, and they camp there. It is a long way and a big commitment for these people. It is also a big commitment for the coaches and managers who accompany them. It can also be expensive, but they do it for the love of the sport and participating in something very Australian. Polocrosse was developed by two Australians many years ago.
I want to mention the players for the record because I think it is important to know the mix of people playing polocrosse at a national level. Bear in mind, only two years ago we had the nationals in Darwin. We have a very good facility at Freds Pass, but it needs a lot more work and funding, Sport minister, to make it a fully flash polocrosse centre – perhaps a lake-view hall. It could be nicely enclosed with air conditioning and a meeting room that is good for entertainment and weddings, and polocrosse grand final victory nights.
The open men’s team included: Paul Hassall; Bernie Brosnan; Daniel Clarke; Larry Phillips; Brian Davidge; Gerard Maley; his brother Peter Maley; Noel Hassall as the coach; and Nicky McMaster as the manager.
The open senor mixed tristate team included: Richard Alley, NT; Ben Guest, NT; Matt Prior, SA; Rob Wait, NT; Emily Coleman, NT; Jessie-Lee Taylor, NT; Amy Grubb, TAS; Tegan Voorham, TAS; Daniel South as the coach; and Angie Harrison as the manager.
The Under 21 mixed tristate team included: Sarah Wyatt, NT; Karina Brink, NT; Tayla Larsson, NT; Lucinda Covill, WA; Jake Burgdorf, VIC; Travis Tremellan, SA; Brodie Medlock, SA; Will Jones, TAS; and Toni Larsson, who we all know is a lovely person and keen on polocrosse, is their manager.
The junior girls tristate team was: Jessica Rogers, NT; Sharia Piening, NT; Amelia Petherick, NT; Holly Wittig, SA; Isabelle Greenhill, TAS; Nikola Holz, NSW; Leah Wilson, NSW; Chris Wittig as coach; and Summah Greenhill as manager.
I have seen some of the results on the various Facebook pages of individuals and the Polocrosse Association. They are doing well, playing hard and representing the Territory well. As we say, they are punching well above their weight, as most Territory sportspeople do when they go interstate.
Congratulations to all the polocrosse people. I wish them the very best in the finals.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to talk about an important matter, being the Northern Territory’s most treasured and recognisable landmark, Aboriginal enterprise and creating a new world-class tourism product.
It appears the federal government is yet again considering placing a total and permanent ban on climbing Uluru. The first point to make about this ludicrous suggestion is that this should be a decision for Territorians, not for bureaucrats in Canberra. Canberra’s current position is that it is ‘working towards closure of the climb’. It says the climb will be permanently closed when less than 20% of Uluru visitors climb the Rock. While there is no evidence that conditions have been met, it appears that outside forces are gathering to interfere. A condition of the management plan is that 18 months’ notice is required to close the climb, but Canberra appears to be in a hurry.
But there are pros and cons in allowing the climb. This is an issue that transcends party politics, and I invite all honourable members and all Territorians to have a grown-up discussion on its merits, particularly the traditional owners. A snap ban by Canberra makes about as much sense as the kneejerk ban by the Labor government at the time on live cattle exports; it could do almost as much damage.
The arguments against allowing people to climb the rock include the opposition by some, but certainly not all, traditional owners and Anangu. Uluru is a sacred site, but the local Anangu have not placed a ban on climbing. At the moment it is a personal decision. The Anangu, of course, feel a great spiritual connection to Uluru. They are also concerned, quite rightly, about safety because they feel a sense of responsibility for the safety of visitors to their land and to that cultural site.
Yes, there are safety issues. The climb is not an easy climb; it is an arduous one which has claimed the lives of more than 35 people since the 1950s, mostly due to heart failure. The arguments in favour of the climb, of allowing a properly regulated climb, are compelling as well.
I was at Uluru a couple of weeks ago with one of Australia’s greatest golfers and one of the best sports people to come out of northern Australia, Greg Norman. At the time, the rock was closed due to high winds. There was no wind at the base, but allegedly there were high winds on top. But he, like I, could see the benefits of allowing people to climb.
Just prior to that visit to Uluru I was in Sydney, coincidentally watching people climb the Sydney Harbour Bridge. More than three million people from over 100 countries have climbed the bridge since the climb was opened in 1998. The experience has been voted as one of the world’s most spectacular and exhilarating.
It is now considered to be the number one experience in Sydney. I am fully aware that the Sydney Harbour Bridge does not have the spiritual significance of Uluru to the traditional owners, but allowing the Uluru climb will allow visitors to better understand its unique Indigenous cultural significance for the Anangu.
There are plenty of examples worldwide of culturally sensitive sites and tourism experiences combining successfully. The temple of Angkor Wat in Cambodia, the Taj Mahal in India and Machu Picchu in Peru all come to mind.
Uluru is as spectacular as or more so than any of those. It rises 348m above the plane and more than 860m above sea level. It is higher than the Eiffel Tower and a whole lot more beautiful. That is why 300 000 or more tourists travel to Uluru each year; many of them would want to climb if they knew it was condoned by the local Aboriginal people.
I believe we should explore the idea of creating a climb with stringent safety conditions and rules enforcing spiritual respect, which will be endorsed, supported and managed by the local Aboriginal community. The benefits would be obvious. I see an opportunity of tendering out such an experience to a safety provider to allow the climb to continue. As you look upon the rock you see, swinging in the breeze, the little chain that people are supposed to hold as they climb. It is a wonder not more than 35 people have lost their lives, whether through heart failure or falling. Such an approach would see substantial benefits. It would be consistent with the government’s Indigenous economic empowerment strategy and would see a great opportunity for local Anangu to participate in a lucrative business and create much-needed local jobs on that culturally significant site.
It would also capture the world’s attention with a culturally sensitive tourism product delivering an unforgettable experience in the spiritual heart of Australia. Another advantage would be that, along with safety requirements, you could tightly control the numbers, which does not happen at the moment. In short, there would be significant economic benefits for the local Indigenous population and economic benefits for the Northern Territory as a whole. It would allow us to be able to increase our marketing opportunities for the tourism sector in the Northern Territory and it would add to people’s tourism experience in the Northern Territory. This is something that Anangu people and Territorians should be having a conversation about, not something that bureaucrats in Canberra should have knee-jerk reactions to.
I move onto a topic which arose during Question Time today when the member for Casuarina asked about Indigenous housing in remote parts of the Northern Territory. It is very cute of the member for Casuarina to talk about Indigenous housing, as she should be well aware that the framework in which we have been implementing the Indigenous housing program has continued to be the framework developed by Labor. That framework was a $1.8bn program that did not see an additional bedroom built under the former Labor government. Fortunately, we have been able to change the parameters of that program and we are now building more bedrooms.
I recall, in Question Time, the member for Nhulunbuy interjecting about Labor’s failures. I thought to myself, ‘How many houses were built in the member for Nhulunbuy’s electorate during the four years of tenure between 2008 and 2012, when she came to parliament in the time of the Labor government?’ I cannot think of an additional house in Gove, Ski Beach, Yirrkala, Galiwinku, Milingimbi, Ramingining or Groote Eylandt. I do not think one additional house was built in the member for Nhulunbuy’s electorate in that time. Like always, the member for Nhulunbuy, as a failure in this Chamber, likes to spruik against others, but will not take responsibility. I thought I should point that out.
Maybe that is a lesson for the member for Casuarina. Perhaps ask me a question about Indigenous housing in Question Time tomorrow and I will be happy to refresh your memory. I will also be happy to illustrate that the member for Wanguri was the adviser to the former Housing minister, Chris Burns, who came up with the framework of not building any new bedrooms in Aboriginal communities. I can also highlight that Labor took all those houses off Aboriginal people in those communities.
Member for Casuarina, please ask me a question about Indigenous housing tomorrow, I beg of you. I bet you will not, because I will illustrate those important things, including the failures of the Labor government.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to give a shout out to 95-year-old Alma Radford. My wife and I were honoured to help Alma celebrate her milestone birthday along with her daughters, Carol and Maxine.
Alma is one of a kind. She is one of 14 children and was born in Kyabram, Victoria, in 1921. During World War II eight of her brothers went to war, four of whom were Rats of Tobruk. Alma worked at Seymour Railway Station, serving refreshments to 900 Army members per train. It was an exceedingly busy time. She came to Adelaide River in 1974 with her husband and children. She is very much a part of our community, always happy to help out, and most of us cannot keep up with her. She always goes to the Adelaide River pub of a Friday night to catch up with her friends. She is a much-loved community member. Happy birthday, Alma.
Turning to another part of my electorate, I pay tribute to Wadeye. Many bad things have been said about the Wadeye community in the past, but you do not hear enough about the good things. There are a few, for example, the excellent work of the Thamarrurr Development Corporation rangers. I was proud to announce last month a Northern Territory grant of $11 500 towards a recycling project through the women’s ranger team. The TDC rangers identified the need to tackle the community’s rubbish problems and started a recycling project, part of a broader program to raise community awareness and reduce waste at Wadeye and the surrounding land and sea country.
In less than three months after the program started, more than 25 000 items of rubbish had been brought to the ranger base by about 80 community members. As well as the rangers, it is important to recognise others supporting the project. Community organisations, the local community development project, West Daly Regional Council, the Murin freight company and Bevcon Recycling in Darwin have all become part of the project, which sees recycled rubbish from the area shipped to Darwin and refund proceeds placed in an account to further the project.
The NT government grant will go towards directly engaging with locals, raising more awareness and support, a dedicated ranger for additional workloads and costs of the project. This is a great initiative which the TDC, the rangers and the whole community can be proud of.
Finally, in my portfolio of Arts and Museums, I remind members that there will be a new library management system rolled out across the Territory from the middle of this year. Remote libraries will be transitioned next year.
The new system is the next generation library management system to be used by 380 libraries worldwide. The Northern Territory government committed $541 000 in last year’s budget to the new system. We recognised there was a need. When you consider there are nearly 100 000 individual users of the current system, which is 16 years old, it is money well spent.
This is not a lead story but an important one. I pay tribute to the Northern Territory Library Director, Patrick Gregory, and his staff for their work to get this project under way. With 52 libraries across the NT, including a network of 32 public and community libraries supported by the Northern Territory Library, this modern and more functional system should be a welcome upgrade. It is something that can help us build a confident culture.
Mr BARRETT (Blain): Mr Deputy Speaker, as you are aware, it was National Youth Week last week. It ran from 8 to 17 April. For those of you who are good at maths, you will know that is not seven days; it is actually nine. That is because young people in the Northern Territory are so fantastic it took more than seven days to celebrate how great they are, so we took nine days instead of seven.
National Youth Week has been a joint collaborative initiative of the Australian state, territory and local governments since the year 2000. National Youth Week seeks to celebrate and recognise the positive contribution of young people in the community. The delivery of National Youth Week is underpinned by a commitment to involve young people in decision-making processes, and it encourages young people to actively engage with the delivery of National Youth Week activities. The government allocated $45 000 in grant funding to directly support drug and alcohol-free events and activities, and youth development opportunities during the 10-day celebration.
The Commonwealth government has also provided funding of $25 000 to support the grant round. With combined Northern Territory and Commonwealth government funding, an extraordinary array of events was held. National Youth Week celebrated Territory youth, but it also highlighted significant challenges, such as youth homelessness. National Youth Week provides us with an opportunity to recognise what is great for young people in the Northern Territory, but obliges us to recognise that there are significant hurdles we must overcome.
The Northern Territory government decommissioned a national planning group for National Youth Week and will not continue to provide grant and operational funding to fund states and territories for National Youth Week after 30 June 2017. This provides an opportunity for government to look at ways to support the program from 2018 onwards.
Overall, 70 events were held across the Northern Territory in celebration of National Youth Week. Of these 70 events and activities, 60% were funded by the NT government, and the remaining 40% were funded by local councils, non-government organisations and businesses.
Some of these events included the Palmy Pool Party on 8 April 2016 at Palmerston swimming and aquatic centre, hosted by the City of Palmerston and launched by me. It included games, challenges, music, a free barbecue and prizes. ShoutOut! hosted the Good Vibes Youth Fest on 9 April 2016 at Jingili Water Gardens. This event was a successful afternoon of skate competitions, yoga, art, therapy and local music.
I spoke earlier about the challenges faced by young people. Anglicare NT hosted the Youth Homelessness Matters Day couch surfing on 13 April at the Parliament House car park. This annual event aims to raise awareness of youth homelessness in the Northern Territory, as the Territory has the highest rate of youth homelessness across the nation. We must ensure that government, local government, non-government organisations and the community continue to work together to solve this very worrying issue.
Somerville Community Services in Katherine hosted a Wii and PlayStation gaming competition. The Alice Springs Town Council coordinated a recycled art competition that encouraged young people to repurpose and recycle materials creatively. Several communities in the Roper Gulf region celebrated National Youth Week with barbecues, community activities, discos, arts and crafts, and movie nights, with participation from the police, health workers and the community safety patrol.
I was able to attend many events in Darwin and Palmerston, and was allowed the opportunity to speak and engage with young people directly. A young person I was able to connect with at several of the events was Pritika Desai. Pritika is from Darwin and was recruited as the NT Ambassador for National Youth Week 2016. The Office of Youth Affairs appoints a young person to the position each year to assist in providing a youth perspective to planning NYW. Pritika is a Community Engagement Officer with the YMCA of the Top End and is an exceptional young role model.
Pritika was the 2015 Northern Territory Young Achiever of the Year and is the founder of ShoutOut!, a successful and well-regarded youth mental health program. Pritika credits the establishment of ShoutOut! to National Youth Week. In 2014 she coordinated her own National Youth Week event called ShoutOut! with a focus on youth mental health, which led to the program’s official establishment. During Youth Week Pritika has gone to a number of events, proving to be an excellent ambassador for the initiative and for young people. She attended the Palmy Pool Party, Youth Homelessness Matters Day couch surfing, Battle of the School Bands, TED Talks at TEDxYouth@Palmerston and the Young Achiever Awards.
Pritika, with the assistance of the YMCA, City of Darwin and ShoutOut!, coordinated her own event at Jingili Water Gardens called the Good Vibes Youth Fest. This government supported the event through the Office of Youth Affairs’ Youth Engagement Grants Program.
I take this opportunity to publicly thank Pritika for all the hard work she put into National Youth Week this year. She has been an outstanding ambassador, providing a valuable youth perspective to the planning of National Youth Week while attending numerous events, lifting the public profile of National Youth Week through speaking engagements and media interviews, and encouraging other young people to get involved in their community.
The official closing of National Youth Week this year coincided with the Young Achiever Awards. I personally congratulate all the nominees, finalists and winners. The Young Achiever Awards are a fantastic opportunity for the entire community to recognise and acknowledge the amazing contributions that young people are making throughout the Territory. Young people are taking the lead on areas such as business, the environment, leadership, caring for others and the arts. It makes me confident that the Territory has a bright future ahead with these young people helping to guide and contribute to decision-making. Big congratulations go to the winner of the Minister for Young Territorians’ Excellence in Youth Leadership Award, Sarah McLaughlin.
Sarah, 21 from Durack, has been a member of St John Ambulance NT for the past 13 years. Sarah was the youngest team member and led a St John Ambulance team on a healthcare and first-aid project in East Timor in 2015. Sarah has a passion for improving health and wellbeing in Aboriginal communities, and is currently researching and planning a proposal to put to the St John Ambulance NT Board.
The future of National Youth Week, with young people like Pritika and Sarah achieving and dedicating their time to important initiatives, is looking bright. The government recognises that National Youth Week 2016 has been a great success and values the outcomes it achieves for young people in the Northern Territory.
Congratulations to all who were involved this year.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Mr Deputy Speaker, a proposed telecommunications tower in Gunn has caused a bit of concern to constituents in my electorate. I want to update the House on what I have done so far.
There have been concerns over the telecommunications tower, which is proposed to be built on a vacant lot across from Sanctuary Lakes in Gunn. I have held meetings with concerned residents and the City of Palmerston Alderman. On Wednesday 13 April 2016 I held a community meeting at Sanctuary Lakes to allow the residents to voice their views and concerns about the proposed tower. There was a great turnout at the meeting, with all 60 residents in attendance. This was an excellent opportunity for me to hear firsthand the views of my constituents. Many open discussions were had and it allowed for opinions to be shared with all. A logical proposal was put forward and it received overwhelming support.
I will now write to the DCA, Optus and Vodafone to voice the concerns of my constituents. I will also write to the Minister for Lands and Planning as it involves him. Optus was extremely helpful in this process and will hold its own community information sessions on Wednesday 27 April 2016 at the Palmerston Library community room. There will be two information sessions; one from 2 pm to 3.30 pm and one from 6.30 pm to 7.30 pm. I look forward to working further with the DCA, Optus and Vodafone to reach a suitable outcome for the constituents of Brennan.
No one was against having better communications in our community, but the location of the proposed tower was causing some angst. I think we can achieve a good resolution to that.
On 6 and 7 April 2016 Darwin played host to two important transport-related national meetings. The Austroads board meeting was held on 6 April and the Transport and Infrastructure Senior Officials’ Committee meeting was held on 7 April. Both meetings were at the Darwin Convention Centre.
The Transport and Infrastructure Senior Officials’ Committee is the senior officials group that advises the Transport and Infrastructure Council, which is the ministerial-level council. The committee is composed of chief executive officers of Commonwealth, state, territory and New Zealand agencies with responsibility for transport and infrastructure issues.
The officials and the ministerial council are the mechanism by which the Northern Territory can advocate for transport reform at a national level. The main items on the agenda included land transport market reform, heavy vehicle road reform, transport technology and the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator’s future agenda.
It proved to be a successful meeting, with further work to be done to resolve some outstanding issues in preparation for the ministerial council meeting in May.
Austroads, on the other hand, is the association of Australasian road transport and traffic agencies. Its purpose is to improve Australian and New Zealand transport outcomes by providing technical input to national road transport policy development, improving the practices and capabilities of road agencies and promoting operational consistency by road agencies.
The Austroads Board comprises chief executives from each member organisation and provides policy and strategic direction to Austroads as well as approving its annual work plan and budget.
The main items on the agenda included Austroads’ strategic priorities and the future work programs to be completed by the various Austroads’ task forces, which include the technology network, freight road safety and registration and licensing task forces. Austroads has over 100 active projects through the relevant streams.
Of importance to the Territory are two of the strategic projects Austroads is undertaking. The first is focusing on funding and financing options for regional and remote roads, and the second will research the community service obligations of roads. These concepts are important for the Territory when considering the current broader conversation on road funding and pricing reform. The Northern Territory government welcomes Austroads’ research into these important issues.
Additionally, the Austroads Board has identified investigation and planning for the future introduction of automated vehicles as a strategic priority. There is a significant development in this space. In the future, as these technologies emerge, there are many implications for transport agencies, including how infrastructure is designed and operated, how vehicles are registered and how drivers are licensed. It will also be important to embrace and optimise potential safety benefits from emerging technology.
Having Darwin host important meetings like these also provides the added opportunity to showcase Darwin to these chief executives from states, territories and the Commonwealth who, when they return to their own state or territory, may have more of an appreciation of the environment in which we operate and how that affects our transport and infrastructure challenges. These meetings present an important opportunity for us to advocate for the Territory and for reform needed at the national level.
I extend my congratulations and thanks to the Department of Transport staff who organised and hosted these meetings. Much of their work goes unpraised, and praise is well deserved in this case.
As Minister for Veterans Support I recently established the Veterans’ Support Ministerial Advisory Council to provide advice and support to the Northern Territory government on issues affecting Australian Defence Force veterans and their families. The formation of the council marks an important milestone for Veterans Support in the Northern Territory, allowing a direct channel for veterans’ representative bodies to communicate with the government.
The council’s role is to monitor and provide advice on matters relating to the mental and physical welfare and wellbeing of veterans and the wider veterans’ community. The inaugural meeting of the council was held on 29 March 2016. The following office bearers were appointed at the inaugural meeting: Mr Bob Shewring was appointed as the chair of the council and Mr Don Milford was appointed deputy chair of the council.
The inaugural council meeting saw discussions held on the following issues: suggested improvements to the endorsed terms of reference; the need for a Northern Territory charter for veterans; the possibility of inviting additional organisations to nominate members; and quarterly short reports to be provided by council members regarding their organisation’s activities.
I intend to use the council’s advice to increase government understanding of veterans’ priorities on a range of issues and to make recommendations to benefit the veterans sector. The council will meet quarterly, with the next meeting being scheduled for 28 June 2016. The minutes of each meeting will be provided to me immediately following each meeting.
The Veterans’ Support Ministerial Advisory Council is a non-statutory advisory body. It is focused on monitoring and providing advice on matters relating to veterans and the veterans’ community.
I have gone into why I have set the council up and why it is important to our community. We all know that so many veterans are choosing to live long-term in the Territory after their military careers. It is important to recognise that while veterans and veterans’ affairs are traditionally a federal matter, these people live in our community. As the Northern Territory government, we also have a responsibility to ensure these people have another avenue to lobby, and my ability to lobby with Canberra will help their cause.
There was a call for this type of forum. If the federal government was providing all it could for veterans in the Northern Territory, I do not think there would be a call for a body like this. There has been a vacuum in certain areas. The federal government is doing a lot, but we should not be afraid of lifting up the rock to see what the wider issues and implications are for the veterans’ community.
I do not think I or anybody could guarantee to fix every problem for every person who has had a military career, but we need the ability to provide a forum where their voices can be heard and carried to a higher level in Canberra to ensure we get all the support we possibly can to support them in our community.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Mr Deputy Speaker, last Thursday I had the great pleasure of speaking at the Local Government Association annual general meeting. I thank the LGANT President and Alice Springs Mayor, Damien Ryan; the hosting Mayor, Lothar Siebert; and all the elected officials and their staff at the conference. I also thank my colleagues who attended the conference: the shadow minister for Local Government, Gerry McCarthy; Senator Nova Peris; federal member for Lingiari, Warren Snowdon; and our Labor voice for Arnhem, Selena Uibo.
I had an enjoyable dinner the night before with the participants, and spent as much time as I could overnight and the next day discussing the issues of importance to the Territory’s local government sector. I also acknowledge the member for Nelson, who was also in attendance. He loves a local government meeting.
I spoke on quite a few matters in my address, but tonight I wish to focus on the issue of local government for remote Territorians. I made it clear at this meeting that, if elected to government, Labor will return significant decision-making across the board to Indigenous people living in remote communities. We have already indicated that our housing policies will be tied to locals taking control of housing in their communities. The principle of trusting locals and local decision-making will underpin our policies and how I work with local government.
The framework of regional councils and local authorities provides for strong governance and economies of scale. It provides the capacity for locals to have a key decision-making role through local authorities. This is the bones of strong local government and it provides the opportunity for government to explore with regional councils and local authorities how we can work, with a view to making decisions as local as possible. We will also ensure that local authorities are a key point of local contact for our Cabinet ministers and other elected members of our government.
Recently I had the opportunity to sit in on a meeting of the Pirlangimpi Local Authority, and it was great to see the local authority in action, discussing and making decisions about grassroots issues of concern to the residents of that community on Melville Island. We will support the continuing and strengthening development of local authorities as a key voice to inform regional councils and our government. Where there is a need and broad support, we will support the development of new forums, with regional cultural authority to take the lead on crucial issues. That is about trusting locals and working with them to have clear involvement in how decisions are made. This is a clear statement from Labor that we will devolve decision-making to the type of government that locals desire.
I also thank the Tiwi Islanders for their generous and warm reception at the Tiwi grand final and a subsequent meeting I had with businesses and organisations on the Tiwi Islands, including the Tiwi Land Council.
The Tiwi grand final was a thriller; it was thrilling football as well as a thrilling score line. It was a great example of the fast-moving Tiwi Islands brand of football. It was a tight, competitive game with Muluwurri and the final victory went to the Tuyu Buffaloes.
It was also great to share in the carnival atmosphere on the day. Thanks to all the local organisations, especially the Tiwi Islands Regional Council members, who made it such a great day for the many visitors.
I was also pleased to return to the islands a couple of weeks later to continue my conversations with local organisations about how a future Labor government hopes to work with them to progress their development plans. This included meeting with a range of organisations like the Munupi Family Trust at Pirlangimpi, the strong women’s group at Bima Wear, the Outback Stores managers at the club bistro, the Bathurst Island Housing Association, workers at the Tiwi Islands Training and Employment Board, the Tiwi Land Council and others.
The Tiwi Land Council has a key role in leading development opportunities for the Tiwi Islands, and it was great to meet with its members again. I am very keen to ensure they see continuing progress of support from government, supporting the planning work they have been undertaking to build education and employment opportunities for Tiwi Islanders. The Tiwi Land Council members also impressed on me that sound environmental management is central to their planning objectives. We discussed how a Labor government will continue to support their land and sea management objectives, including greater recognition of their cultural understanding of land and marine resources and developing sustainable development opportunities.
My message to the Tiwi Land Council, as with any group I meet with, is that any government I lead wants to build on all the hard work they have done over recent years in progressing their local community plans. We have to keep moving forward and putting that work in.
I have enjoyed my work trips across the Territory and I continue to be energised by the commitment of local people to building strong communities, a work in progress I will support wherever I can.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to talk about three things, mainly relating to the Holtze correctional precinct, or prison. One concern in relation to the prison, which I have raised in this House a number of times, is the lack of a bus service to the prison.
Since I raised it a number of groups have also raised the issue, so I want to raise it again. My concern is that some see a bus service as something that is – ‘Oh dear, how sad. If your relations had not committed a crime they would not be in prison and you would not have to worry about a bus service.’ I do not see that as the correct process.
We should not punish the family and children because one of their parents has been locked up. It is a bit like the sins of the father being passed on to the children. That is a very old-fashioned idea. Not only is it old-fashioned, but it is a negative approach to something that should be used to help with the rehabilitation of prisoners. If a prisoner feels that when he leaves the prison he will not be wanted by his family, he is less likely to be rehabilitated and less likely to care.
We should ensure we have ways of helping the family to keep in contact with a family member who is in prison. One way to do that is a bus service.
I am not arguing the case that Correctional Services should put on a bus service. I am arguing the case that Port Phillip Prison in Melbourne is part of the public bus service.
The rural area, for a long time, has not had much of a service when it comes to public buses. Here is an opportunity to combine serving the rural community, the Palmerston community and others whilst providing a bus service for families to visit the prison. It is simple. There is a bus that goes to the 15 Mile community. It could take workers to the INPEX village – that is, people who work within the village. It could then take workers and families to the prison, which is just up the road. It could take people, especially from Palmerston, who would like to spend a day with their children at the Howard Springs Nature Park, which has a wonderful rock pool, beautiful facilities and is extremely popular. It would be even more popular if the government goes ahead with allowing the rope climbing concept that has been put forward to add to the attraction of the park. That bus could come back via Howard Springs and take local people back to Palmerston.
But no one is willing to try it. All I have received is negative, negative, negative. I ask the Minister for Correctional Services, the Minister for Indigenous Affairs and the Minister for Transport to please give this a trial. Do not be negative about something that you should be positive about. There are benefits for workers, families, prisoners and locals in Palmerston. Give it a go. We spend money on lots of other things. Here is something that would not cost a huge amount of money and we just receive a negative approach to it, which is something we should look at. I hope the ministers will think about it and do something about it.
I was flabbergasted to find out that prisoners cannot have animals anymore. There is some clause in the contract for this prison that does not allow prisoners to have animals. I cannot believe that. Animals have a great therapeutic way of helping people, whether they have mental illnesses, are sick or old.
I know from talking to people who look after kids on diversionary programs at Wongabilla how important it is to have horses. I supplied 20 chickens to Banyan House, the drug and alcohol rehabilitation centre. You should have seen the looks on the faces of those people who took them one by one out of the back of the vehicle, knowing they would have fresh eggs, and immediately having a relationship with that animal. It might only be a chook, but it is the same thing.
I visited the therapeutic centre for women in the Ohio Reformatory for Women. When I visited the prison they opened some of the cells and there were women looking after greyhounds. In the cellar of an old building which is part of that prison there was a woman on death row looking after animals that had been injured, the same as we do in the Northern Territory.
I am amazed that we have taken a really important part of prisoner rehabilitation out of our prison. I have not heard anything from the Minister for Correctional Services or the Minister for Infrastructure; can someone tell me why? It amazes me that animals can do a lot to turn a person’s life around, yet we seem to have said, ‘That is bad luck’. I do not know who has the private part of that relationship, whether it is Lendlease, but I would be going to Lendlease and saying that if part of the contract says that you cannot have animals, we need to take it out of the contract.
If it has something to do with health then I would say, ‘Give me a break’. How many of us have a dog on that back veranda or in the house? How many people look after horses? Do we worry about it for those people? It is urgently needed.
I visited the prison many times before it was opened. I visited it with the Public Accounts Committee, and I visited the Alice Springs prison, and something that is vastly different is the security. I am not against security, but someone rang me today and said they went to visit a prisoner today – they are a legal person – and it took eight attempts to get the eye identification working. I wonder if the design of that building is over the top. When we went to Alice Springs we did not put up with all that; we went through very quickly. Even in the old prison you still had to get checked, but it was much quicker than the new prison. I wonder if there should be a review of the security. Is it over secure? Is it unfriendly to people who visit the prison?
I am not saying you should not have security. By all means we need to make sure there are no drugs and contraband going through the prison, but maybe we have invented a prison that is not quite ‘Northern Territory’. It may be great for Alcatraz and Port Phillip Prison – maybe it is just me, but perhaps this needs to be looked at.
On the good side, a couple of months ago I visited boot camp facilities in Ross River in Alice Springs. I still need to do more work on reading a report that came to me today, but I was impressed by it. I was impressed by the people running it and the reports I am getting back about it. I think it is the wrong name; it is a name that Terry Mills, when he was Opposition Leader, brought back from the United States and South Australia. It could do with a more positive name because I do not think it is the same as the boot camp you see on TV.
From all reports, it is being run very successfully. A resident rang me today, from Howard River, who visited there the other day, said how great it was and asked whether the government could use it for more young people. I will read the report and put a report in my newsletter about it because it is positive. It is something the government should be congratulated for.
We need to see the outcomes. We can spend a lot of money on these facilities, but are we getting the outcomes and return for the money spent? I am interested in looking at the report. Even though I have some issues with the Holtze prison, I have some positive reports to make about the boot camp at Ross River.
Ms MOSS (Casuarina): Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to speak about a much-loved and respected principal in my electorate, Ms Sandy Cartwright from Alawa Primary School. Last week Sandy Cartwright was recognised in the NT Australian Council for Educational Leaders Awards as the Fellowship Award winner.
I have had the honour of being able to get very involved with all my local schools over the last 18 months and Alawa is no exception. It is driven by enthusiasm, passion and commitment, and shows innovation in many areas. It has strong leadership where good and new ideas are tried and put into action. You can see them everywhere you look.
A really good example of that at Alawa Primary School is the fact it was a winner at the NT Landcare Awards and the NT Natural Resource Management Awards last year. It was the junior Landcare winner for its garden program, which is their Alawa farm. It has goats, chickens and a range of things growing in it. The school runs the Stephanie Alexander kitchen program out of the Alawa farm. There is a frog pond, a native garden and active involvement from the students – practical education on the school grounds.
You can see the pride in the students in this program. They love showing people around the farm. They love showing off their knowledge of the environmental processes that occur there, and it is incredible to witness.
Ms Sandy Cartwright has been involved in education for 26 years across the Territory. Many people will be very familiar with her. I believe she started in Canberra in the 1980s and made her way to the Northern Territory, where she has taught Katherine School of the Air and at Clyde Fenton Primary School in Katherine. She has worked in the Department of Education and in a number of primary schools in the northern suburbs. She has fit some extra study in there as well, and has been the Principal of Alawa Primary School for the last three years.
The Fellowship Award at the Australian Council for Educational Leaders NT is described as a special category of membership award for those who have made an outstanding contribution over a period of time to the improvement of student and organisational outcomes. It was particularly focused on Sandy’s consistent work over a long period of time, but also on her work using great expert and Meaningful Maths. Anybody who has been to Alawa Primary School will have heard of Meaningful Maths as we talk a lot about it. We have also seen the introduction of Ally the Alawa learner, a frilled-neck lizard who is regularly at the school’s award events and assemblies to engage students in the material they are learning.
The award is a system-wide recognition and it is so deserved. The school at Alawa has great partnerships, and we see that all the time. It is consistently showing its work to other schools, principals and assistant principals, and opening up two-way communication. It is a learning and teaching school.
In 2008 Sandy established the Meaningful Maths network in Katherine, which has expanded across the Northern Territory. That is an example of the leadership Sandy Cartwright has shown in wanting to share knowledge to create supportive networks in education in the Northern Territory.
We are pleased to have her at Alawa. She is a massive fan of Keith Urban, Taylor Swift and Hugh Jackman, which is something the students are very aware of. One of the highlights of the last year was seeing some students get together on instruments to perform a Keith Urban song especially for Ms Cartwright – that is how much she is loved in the school – and then her guessing which Keith Urban song it was. It was quite amusing but a very special moment that showed how much respect she has from the students, school body and parents.
I put on the record this evening my appreciation of her and massive congratulations for the recognition of her hard work at Alawa Primary School.
I also wish to make comment on National Youth Week, as the Minister for Young Territorians did. What a fantastic week National Youth Week always is. We had the great honour of attending the Young Achiever Awards on Saturday night. A number of members were at the awards night. It is one of the favourite nights of the year for many of us because it celebrates of the contribution of young people in our community, which is immense.
One of the things I got out of that night is that we continually talk about young people as the leaders of tomorrow and the future. For me, the Young Achiever Awards truly demonstrates that young people are leaders of today. There are a number of young people who have excelled in their career aspirations, business, sport and the environment.
One winner, Amanda Lilleyman, was recognised for her work with migratory shore birds. Her work is discussed at my local Landcare group and I am sure in many other places. The work these young people are doing is vibrating through the community.
One of the greatest things about this year’s Young Achiever Awards was that Kate Axten, a young Indigenous teacher from Alice Springs, was the overall Young Achiever of the Year. She is a beautiful speaker who talked about the importance of education on the night, but also recognised the other people who had been nominated and the importance of all of them in building enthusiasm for education in our remote communities.
It sends a beautiful message that the Young Achiever of the Year in the Northern Territory is a young teacher. I think that it will open up a lot of opportunities for her; I hope it does, and that it will open up a conversation on the value of education and the importance of our young Indigenous educators in promoting that throughout the Northern Territory.
Pritika Desai delivered a beautiful speech on the night. I have been very lucky to watch Pritika, who was the National Youth Week Young Member for the last year, grow over a long period of time. ShoutOut!, the project she runs, has been created from the ground up, from an event that she ran as part of National Youth Week a couple of years ago to something that is now sponsored by the YMCA. She gets to involve many more people to spread the word on breaking down the stigma in mental health, and getting young people involved in service design and delivery. She has been very passionate about it and was a fabulous National Youth Week Young Member.
The Minister for Young Territorians touched on the fact we need to do some planning, noting that the federal funding will change for National Youth Week beyond 2017. I am really glad to hear that is being thought about because a range of things are connected to that. Will we have a national week that will be selected? How will the funding work? What will be the Northern Territory government’s continued commitment to the largest celebration of young people across Australia?
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I once again seek the Chief Minister’s support for telecommunications in the Barkly region, especially around the mobile phone tower that was constructed at the Barrow Creek roadhouse but does not provide mobile coverage to the majority of the population, which is well over 100 people living, working and conducting business at the Tara community and Neutral Junction Station.
Chief Minister, I thank you for your reply on 29 March 2016. The letter said:
- I refer to your letter of 10 February 2016 requesting installation of a ‘small cell tower’ to provide mobile phone services for the residents of Tara community and Neutral Junction Station by accessing signal from the mobile base station nearby at Barrow Creek.
This request has been followed up by Telstra’s Senior Account Executive with mobile phone engineers within Telstra and the following advice received:
‘The smart cell technology is not fit for purpose and is designed to service a single dwelling that is on the fringe of mobile coverage area.’
Chief Minister, I will now quote from Mr Darren Disney from the office of Senator Hon Mitch Fifield, Minister for Communications, who talks about Telstra small cells in his reply to my correspondence to the minister:
- I also note your comment in relation to the use of ‘small cell’ technology to deliver improved mobile coverage. Under round one of the programme, Telstra will deploy 200 4G small cells in regional locations across Australia where suitable infrastructure is available. These small cells will provide mobile data coverage of approximately 200-300 metres and will support voice services as the technology for 4G based voice becomes available. The Government and Telstra are currently in discussions regarding the locations of the 200 small cells which are expected to be announced in the first half of 2016.
Chief Minister, I welcome you to visit the Tara community and the Neutral Junction Station, where you will witness both localities within a radius of about 200 m of each other. In the middle of that circle is the supporting infrastructure with the community’s power, water and available land. Should the technology need to be based in each location – the cattle station and the community – that needs to be explored.
We are talking about a population of over 100 people living, working and conducting business in a locality 7 km from the Barrow Creek tower. It is a major deficit in planning and delivery. In your letter you talk about the communities and locations across the Northern Territory and the challenges in delivering. You said:
- The Tara community is on the list to be considered for mobile phone coverage. Following provision of engineering and cost information from Telstra the relative priority of Tara will be reconsidered. Should a viable and technically feasible option become available we will work with Telstra to get Tara added to the co-investment program.
Chief Minister, it is interesting in your letter that you do not talk about the legacy of the program you delivered; however, Darren Disney from the office of Senator Mitch Fifield does. He said:
- … Government has committed $60m towards round two of the Mobile Black Spot Programme, with funding to be made available over two years from July 2016. Round two will continue to utilise the database of mobile black spot locations as reported by members of the public. The database will be used by the mobile network operators to select the locations where they propose to deliver improved mobile coverage. The database closed for new nominations on 15 January 2016.
Our nomination is in there, Chief Minister, and we need your support. In regard to the existing infrastructure delivered by the CLP government to the Barrow Creek roadhouse, it is interesting that the chief of staff to Senator Mitch Fifield writes in this letter:
- The mobile base station at the Barrow Creek Roadhouse is not part of the Mobile Black Spot Programme. It was constructed in 2014 as part of the $5.76m joint project between Telstra and the Northern Territory Government to deliver mobile phone coverage and internet access to 13 remote communities in the Northern Territory.
The Department of Communications and the Arts recently contacted Telstra to seek information about the base station at Barrow Creek. Telstra advised that the location of the base station was selected in conjunction with the Northern Territory Government based on the ability to access existing supporting infrastructure. Telstra also advised that Neutral Junction and Tara were not selected as suitable locations, as there was no supporting infrastructure available and, therefore, considerable additional costs would be associated with accessing and deploying infrastructure in the area.
Chief Minister, I find that very strange. I encourage you to visit Tara, where under the Labor government’s previous national partnership agreement on housing 18 refurbishments are occurring. The community has just built a church. There is community power supplied to the cattle station and the Tara community under the agreement with the department’s community and essential services provision.
Teachers are residing at Neutral Junction Station and there is a school there. There is a health clinic at Tara community and nurses are living at Neutral Junction Station, which is very progressive not only in its cattle enterprise, but also a major hay-producing enterprise that is getting a lot of business and supporting a new management regime for finishing cattle, as well as supporting weaner development in the beef cattle industry.
Chief Minister, there is supporting infrastructure there and the majority of the area’s population is there, but you have decided to locate this tower at Barrow Creek and exclude the majority of the population. I seriously ask you to revisit this with the federal government. You mentioned in the House that you had access to about $70m to continue to roll out mobile technology across the Northern Territory. We need to retrofit this area; it is a priority. It is a serious embarrassment and the people at Tara community and Neutral Junction Station are continuing to lobby through me. I have also orchestrated a number of other initiatives and encouraged people to use those to lobby you as the Chief Minister, the federal government and our federal members.
Once again, this issue will continue. A few opportunities are presented in the correspondence. There is a bit of a conflict in the information supplied, but let us not worry about that. Let us get on with the business of retrofitting appropriate technology to deliver for these regional and remote Territorians who have plans, businesses, a school, a clinic and a community. We are talking about 7 km, by road, away from that mobile phone tower.
In my experiences travelling the vast distances of the Northern Territory, these installations normally have a footprint of around 20 km to 30 km, sometimes more. This geographic location precludes the Tara community and Neutral Junction Station. Senator Mitch Fifield said that he thinks there will be opportunities for small cell technology to deliver that retrofit. If that is the case, let us start to explore that and make sure we get this right before you go down the track of establishing any more. It is a very important issue about economic development, road safety and community safety.
Chief Minister, in your position as the first minister of the Northern Territory, you have the opportunity to deliver for our constituents across the length and breadth of the Northern Territory.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I speak about the township of Katherine. I have been visiting Katherine for pretty much my whole life. I can remember, as a child, we would always stop there on our travels up and down the Stuart Highway. I have fond memories of attending the Katherine swimming carnival as a teenager. It was held over a weekend and always lots of fun.
In more recent times I have delivered a number of water safety programs in the town, often spending the weekend with local residents and hearing their stories firsthand.
Last week I took the time to once again visit Katherine and meet with local business owners. The Territory Labor candidate for Katherine is a very energetic local resident who took the time to introduce me to many business owners so I could hear from them directly. Sandra shared her story and that of her community, something the local member for Katherine has been unable to do over the last few months in this Chamber.
Walking down the Stuart Highway main street, from Chambers Drive turn-off up to the United petrol station, we noticed numerous shopfronts had closed. Although this might seem fairly minor, in a small town such as Katherine it indicates that something is going on. It is a sign that they are reaching crisis point in this small town.
The government should be well aware of the issue; it has been raised in the Katherine Times but has been clearly ignored by the government.
The temporary beat locations, or POSIs, or whatever they are called this month, might have had some positive social impact in the initial starting months – I am told that the main street looked lovely and clean – but it has had a far more significant negative impact on local businesses, and not just the liquor retail businesses. Across this small community, the impact of this failing CLP policy is being felt.
The proprietors of the local caravan park reported that at the same time last year their laundromat bill was around $150 a week, but it has since dropped to around $25 a week, a significant drop. The Silver Screen Cafe has seen a drop in the number of meals served in comparison to last year. Staff there told me that they are serving 700 fewer meals per week. That is a significant reduction in turnover for a small business, which would have a significant impact of flow-on effects in such a small community.
Being a small town, people were happy to meet with me but they asked that I keep their businesses confidential. Some expressed that this failed government policy is having such a huge impact that they felt the story needs to be told and have allowed me to share their names in the House tonight.
The Katherine Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Market on Crawford Street, along with the Silver Screen Cafe on First Street, are businesses that do not have liquor licences but have been negatively affected by the TBLs, temporary beat locations, in Katherine. These are only a couple of the businesses, but it is indicative of what is happening to many others. The effect is far-reaching. From liquor outlets to corner sandwich shops to car sales, the government’s TBLs are impacting negatively on local businesses, which was clear with the local businesses I met with. It may be an unintended consequence of the TBLs to push people away from Katherine, but it is impacting on business dramatically.
Supporters like to say the TBLs have been great for Katherine; it has cleaned up the town, but at the same time this policy is destroying the businesses of this small Territory town. It has simply pushed the problem elsewhere, which my community in Nightcliff is feeling, as are the other communities in the Darwin region.
But today I am speaking about Katherine, which is something the local member has been unable to do in this House. Raised with me was the incredibly negative image tourists see when they walk into a retail outlet and see not one, but two police officers standing there to welcome everyone. What message does the CLP government think this is sending? The Banned Drinker Register, on the other hand, was simple and effective. It was Territory-wide, which was an important part of the program.
With the TBLs we have simply seen the issue pushed elsewhere. Local businesses feel that people have left town and are visiting Kununurra, Mount Isa and Darwin. They may have taken away some of the problems, but they have taken a huge part of Katherine’s business trade with them. There have been many claims that the TBLs have reduced crime in Katherine and that we have less antisocial behaviour, but I challenge the current member to come into the House and provide those numbers.
As I moved around the town there seemed to be less antisocial behaviour on the main street, but it only took a short walk to First Street, Second Street and Giles Street to see that issues have been pushed into certain areas. The TBLs may classify as a successful program for the current member, but not for the constituents I met with. Sandra, the Territory Labor candidate, explained the frustration of the local community of the TBL program, which is equally shared among those I met with. Sandra shared stories with me from a family that have had their property broken into five times in 18 months by people looking for alcohol to steal. Another resident has had their personal property broken into nine times since the middle of 2014. In fact, the last three break-ins happened over the Easter weekend. Their property was broken into over three consecutive nights. All that was taken was alcohol. This is only two stories, but there are many others.
People raised with me their strong concerns that the current local member for Katherine is saying fewer people are presenting to ED with alcohol-related injuries, but they also raised that it is common sense – this would be the logical case given the drop in numbers as people are leaving the community. I took the time to meet with residents, which the community feels the local member has not been able to do.
We are elected by communities to represent them. It is an honour to have a voice in this parliament. But the people in Katherine do not feel that the current member is doing that. Whilst the government might claim the TBLs are cleaning up the streets of Katherine, they are also cleaning up the businesses of Katherine by clearing them out of town. Every business owner I spoke with raised the negative effect on business of the TBLs. The government must consider that. You cannot simply ignore it or brush it under the carpet.
I sincerely thank the people who took the time away from their businesses to meet with me, even if it was not convenient for them to leave their businesses, but the TBLs and the impact on businesses are a far greater inconvenience.
It was important for me to hear directly from business owners in Katherine about the POSI TBLs and how they have affected businesses. I undertook that I would raise the issue in the next parliamentary sittings to highlight that the negative impact is far reaching and not isolated to licence holders. I have done that tonight.
It is important to me that I ensure the concerns of business owners in Katherine are being represented in the parliament, which their local member has been unable to do. This issue needs to be addressed because businesses have closed down or experienced a huge reduction in turnover and sales, and that has a flow-on effect through a small community. On the main street of Katherine there has been a reduction in antisocial behaviour, but residents feel there has not been a reduction in the community more broadly in crime, especially with property offences still being a strong issue.
Community members and business owners raised with me that they would like to see the BDR reintroduced. They said it should be introduced across the NT so problem drinkers do not move away to access alcohol. They simply cannot leave town to move to another area and take their business, family and friends with them. Another important point is the chance for rehabilitation. You need to be in your community with family and support.
Another important point was raised with me was that at the end of the day, police do not go through extensive and expensive training to stand in front of bottle shops all day. They are too important and need to be out and about on the beat. That is what the people in Katherine expressed to me.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am delighted to speak about an NT organisation based in Winnellie which is making an outstanding contribution to our community. Helping People Achieve, or HPA, as this organisation is commonly known, is the only registered Australian Disability Enterprise in Darwin.
HPA is a not-for-profit organisation providing supported employment and accommodation options for Territorians with a physical or mental challenge since 1963. HPA’s corporate mission is to assist people with disabilities to create a fulfilling everyday life and achieve their full potential. While its corporate vision is through employment and support, people with disabilities can develop confidence, independence and life skills to lead a fulfilled everyday life in a world where there are no barriers.
Besides adding productive endeavours to the Australian economy, HPA provides an opportunity for its employees to feel proud of and satisfied with their contributions within the workforce and society. As part of a nationwide network of Australian Disability Enterprises, HPA, like other Australian Disability Enterprises, supports people who have a disability to engage in a wide variety of work tasks. According to the federal government’s Department of Social Services, these work tasks include packaging, assembly, production, recycling, screen printing, plant, nursery, garden maintenance and landscaping, cleaning services, laundry services and food services.
HPA currently supports 68 people in its employment service and 40 in its accommodation service. Its aim is to support employees to move into open employment once core work skills are built. It does this through an annual employee action plan.
Through the successful operation of the three core enterprises, HPA continues to provide opportunity for the development of its greatest asset, the people. There are three businesses which HPA operates: Kokoda Industries; Ausdesigns; and Darwin Accommodation Services.
Kokoda is a medium-scale timber and steel fabrication workshop with an emphasis on made-to-order products. This business manufactures quality timber and metal products, including outdoor furniture, survey pegs, pallets, crates, sprinkler stands and trailers.
Ausdesigns designs and manufactures a wide range of conference bags, tableware, souvenirs and gifts made exclusively from local Indigenous fabric designed in the Northern Territory. HPA Ausdesigns also provides reliable and secure confidential document shredding; assembly work; industrial rags from T-shirts, singlets, cotton sheeting and towels; bank bags; mail-outs; and packing tasks.
HPA also has an accommodation service which operates within the Darwin and Palmerston area, called Darwin Accommodation Services. This service assists people who have a disability with low to moderate support needs. The services provided by DAS, Darwin Accommodation Services, focus on increasing independent living skills and community participation.
HPA Board of Directors, executive and staff have been working hard to develop the HPA brand to the next level and ensure its slogan is the main focus of what it wants to achieve by its organisation helping people achieve. HPA’s market has strengthened, with the community’s knowledge of HPA’s range of products and the service the organisation provides with its three different businesses.
HPA is a worthy nominee for a Telstra Business Award in 2016. Over the past year I have heard concerns from HPA as the federal Department of Defence advised this organisation that from 1 July 2015 there would be a change in Defence contract arrangements. Under the new arrangements, HPA would no longer have a direct contract with the Department of Defence to supply the wooden practice targets used by Defence forces to prepare for combat.
A prime contractor, Broadspectrum, would have responsibility for managing our major contract, which included supply of practice targets. At the same time the Department of Defence told HPA that it had given Broadspectrum HPA’s details and a strong endorsement of HPA as a supplier of practice targets, and that the Department of Defence anticipated that HPA would continue to supply practice targets under the new arrangement.
It is important to note that prior to the change in the Department of Defence contracted arrangements, HPA had been supplying practice targets directly to the Defence Force for the past 15 years. The practice target contract is very important to HPA as it represents 30% of HPA’s Kokoda Industries’ revenue and a quarter of the firm’s employment. Sales from HPA businesses are essential and fundamental to the organisation’s successful operation and outstanding social outcomes.
HPA was advised by Broadspectrum that the practice targets for the Defence Force are to be produced by a Broadspectrum wholly-owned subsidiary in Victoria and shipped to the Northern Territory. As there are few other payed employment opportunities for people with disabilities, the current HPA workers could most likely end up on social welfare benefits, and the viability of the Northern Territory’s key disability service and support organisation would be at risk.
The awarding of the Department of Defence practice target contract away from the Northern Territory’s sole Australian Disability Enterprise to an interstate-based subsidiary of a multinational company could create major social and employment impacts for people with disabilities in the Northern Territory.
Given the importance of HPA as the Northern Territory’s sole Australian Disability Enterprise and the potential for the negative public reaction and media towards the Department of Defence for such a decision, I wrote to the Minister of Defence, Senator Hon Marise Payne, seeking her support to advocate for HPA retaining the practice target contract.
Minister Payne has recently replied to my letter, saying:
- Defence's changes in procurement were taken to address significant departmental reform requirements. The procurement of Base Services sought national level providers of services to deliver economies of scale and national consistency in services. The contract was awarded on value for money considerations in accordance with Commonwealth Procurement Rules.
Minister Payne further said in her letter:
- Both my Office and Defence have been in contact with BroadSpectrum, who have advised that they are happy to work with HPA/Kokoda Industries to explore what opportunities may be available, including potential sub-contracting arrangements.
Last week two representatives of Broadspectrum met with the CEO of HPA, Mr Tony Burns, at HPA’s Winnellie premises. According to Tony it was a constructive meeting regarding the Defence target work for HPA and for the exploring of other opportunities to work together, and that they look forward to working closely with the Broadspectrum team.
I am very hopeful that HPA and Broadspectrum will form a working relationship that will result in HPA and its employers continuing to make an outstanding contribution to our community.
I will also speak about the International Service Excellence Award to Kinetic IT. I congratulate the NTG’s ICT service centre, managed by Kinetic IT. Kinetic IT has been recognised internationally for its service excellence. The centre claimed the International Council of Customer Service Organizations’ 2015 International Service Excellence Award in the internal support services category. The awards, managed by the Customer Service Institute of America, recognise governments, organisations and individuals around the globe for their commitment to customer service excellence.
The judging criteria for the awards are based on the rigorous international customer service standards. This success shows the NT is performing at an international level and continually punching well above its weight in Australia in regard to service delivery in the ICT field. This is the sixth major customer service excellence award the government’s ICT service centre has won in the past three years. It has been the NT winner of the Customer Service Institute of Australia’s Service Excellence award in the Service Desk/Help Desk category every year since 2013, and claimed a national award in the same category in 2014 and 2015.
This continued success saw it nominated as a finalist and then go on to win the ICCSO award, recognised as the premier service award around the globe. The NT government’s ICT service centre offers a single point of contact for staff in government departments and agencies to access outsourced ICT services. It consistently delivers improved service response times and effective problem resolutions to over 20 000 public servants in the Territory.
The NT government’s ICT procurement strategy is based on a customer service and industry best-practice model. This is focused on continuous improvement in service delivery and responsiveness to all the public servants who rely on efficient ICT services to enable them to deliver their frontline services to the Territory community.
The NT government faces the challenge of providing services to people across more than 1.3 million square kilometres, including some very remote locations. The Chair of the International Service Excellence Awards, Christine Churchill, said:
- Introducing the national winners of the Australian Service Excellence Awards as finalists for the International Service Excellence Awards really raised the bar and made this year’s awards the most competitive and close race to date.
Through digital advances the world is getting smaller, and successfully navigating the waters of customer experience is more challenging than ever. Each year service excellence is redefined by the customer and, I am told, the award winners must innovate to meet those ever-changing desires and expectations. The Northern Territory government is a very proud partner of Kinetic IT in delivering consistent award-winning service.
I visited the ICT service centre last year and congratulated them on a national award. A number of weeks ago it was a pleasure to meet with the same committed group of people, who won that national award and went on to win an international award. As a Territorian I stood there, very proud, looking at those people punching well above their weight across the world. To the team from Kinetic IT and DCIS, I say congratulations to you all on a very fine job.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to talk about an important matter that affects Territory women, as Territory Labor’s shadow minister for women.
I start by raising very serious concerns I have in relation to federal funding for the Northern Territory Working Women’s Centre. The centre has been informed its current funding will cease on 30 June 2016, and has received no commitment to any ongoing funding through its federal providers. This is an alarming and shameful state of affairs. Today I wrote to the federal Women’s minister, Michaelia Cash, and her colleagues, member for Solomon Natasha Griggs and Senator Nigel Scullion, to seek their commitment to ongoing federal funding for the Northern Territory Working Women’s Centre.
I call on these federal government members to stand up for Territory women, and I call on the Territory’s Minister for Women’s Policy, the member for Stuart, to also stand up for women and implore her federal colleagues to support the Northern Territory Working Women’s Centre and commit to funding beyond 30 June. Around two-thirds of the funds come from the federal government. The remaining one-third comes from the NT government, but I do not know if a commitment has been made for continuing funding beyond 30 June at the Territory level.
The Northern Territory Working Women’s Centre has provided a professional specialist advisory and advocacy service to women with work issues in the NT since 1994. I attended a wonderful celebration here in 2014, hosted by Madam Speaker, to mark its 20th anniversary.
The Northern Territory Working Women’s Centre is based in Woods Street in Darwin, but in more recent years an office has opened in Alice Springs. I am familiar with both offices, having visited them from time to time, and I understand the good work they do. I pay tribute to the extraordinary work of the women who work there, who have no job security beyond 30 June. I can assure you that is the last thing on their minds; they are more interested in the women they provide a service to.
With limited resources, the Northern Territory Working Women’s Centre also endeavours to provide an outreach service to remote women, such as those I represent in remote homelands and communities of northeast Arnhem Land. I will quote from information provided by the Northern Territory Working Women’s Centre which outlines what it does:
- The NTWWC assists the most vulnerable women with their work issues – 50% of clients are from regional/remote areas, 21% are Indigenous and 15% are from Culturally or Linguistically Diverse backgrounds. The NTWWC fills a gap in reaching this group who face financial, social and accessibility barriers. As a result of contact with the NTWWC, 23% of clients maintained their employment, 29% of clients received their entitlements, 19% of clients were assisted to maintain a positive relationship with their employer, and in 48% of cases disputes were resolved before escalating to legal proceedings. In addition to these solid outcomes, access to the NTWWC results in less unmeritorious claims and improves the efficiency of claims processes. The NTWWC lends its unique data and expertise to inform research, policy development and systemic advocacy on emerging issues such as domestic violence as a workplace issue, and pregnancy discrimination.
The ministers for women at both the federal and Territory level are surely well aware of the issues that working women continue to experience, which impact on their ability to participate in the workforce. These issues include – I quote again from the Northern Territory Working Women’s Centre website:
- … pay inequity, the superannuation gap, sexual harassment, under-representation, pregnancy and sex discrimination, and domestic violence as a workplace issue.
If the NTWWC were forced to close, there would be no equivalent service for vulnerable women in the NT and we would lose an established voice on systemic gendered employment issues. This would leave thousands of women workers without recourse to advice, and place additional burdens on legal services, community services, FWO and the Fair Work Commission. There would be an increase in unmeritorious claims, litigation and disputes. Fewer women would secure their rightful entitlements, with flow on effects for their ongoing economic security, as well as their families.
This service is too important for Territory women to let it fall over for want of funding.
I do not have much faith in the Turnbull-led government to support women. To be honest, the CLP’s track record on women speaks for itself on how it approaches women’s issues. Four out of six women have left the CLP government benches since it came to power, leaving it as a minority government, and an unpopular one at that.
In regard to the fate of the Northern Territory Working Women’s Centre, I think this critical organisation might have received a greater level of support if there had been greater connectivity between government, women and the various organisations and stakeholders, including the NGO sector, which is where the Northern Territory Working Women’s Centre sits.
If it were underpinned by a women’s consultative group or a women’s round table – I have had this very discussion with the Working Women’s Centre and I will be the first to admit that, under the former government, such an important consultative group did not receive the attention it deserved and was allowed to decline.
As Territory Labor’s shadow minister for Women’s Policy, I can say that if returned to government, Labor would elevate Women’s Policy to the Department of the Chief Minister. We would support and resource a women’s consultative group, by whatever name it might have, to inform government policy and direction on the needs of women and girls, address and advance gender equality, and tackle domestic and family violence amongst other things.
Unfortunately, the current CLP government took three-and-a-half years to announce, on 12 February this year, that it would form a women’s consultative council, at which time it called for nominations. The nominations closed on 26 February and we are still to hear, nearly two months later, who the 12 women on that council are, of which five will be appointed by the minister and seven through an expression of interest nomination process.
I am sure this consultative council, when it is formed, will be full of good, hard-working women who will be up to the task. I am sure that announcement will come from the minister very soon. But it comes disappointingly late in the term of this government, four months out from an election and less than that to a caretaker period.
It hardly gives a newly-formed women’s consultative council time to ramp up before an election. I appreciate that the Minister for Women’s Policy is the only woman in Cabinet; she has a heavy workload and is surrounded by male colleagues. Unfortunately, women’s policy matters have taken a back seat.
Tonight my intention is to raise awareness about the federal government’s decision to allow the Northern Territory Working Women’s Centre to take a back seat. The Turnbull government does not see this important organisation as a priority, with the decision to not renew its funding when the agreement expires on 30 June.
Let us see the member for Solomon, Natasha Griggs, stand up for Territory women. Let us see Senator Nigel Scullion stand up for women. Let us see the member for Stuart, the Territory’s Women’s Policy minister, lead the charge from Darwin to Canberra and fight for Territory women.
On a postscript to that, the charge has already been well and truly instigated and led by the Northern Territory Working Women’s Centre. I have just been on its website and seen that its electronic petition is just shy of 1000 petitioners signing in less than 24 hours. I place on the record a comment from its website. It says:
- It’s great to see that Senator Michaelia Cash is aware of the funding issues for the Working Women's Centres and is ‘currently considering it’.
That is indeed good news. I also note that in the Senate this afternoon a discussion for funding for Working Women’s Centres has been discussed. Senator Claire Moore, for Labor, has spoken on this issue and raised a question.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I place this very important matter about funding and supporting the NT Working Women’s Centre before this parliament and hope there is a positive outcome.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016