2013-02-20
Madam Speaker Purick took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of Year 11 Darwin High School students who will be participating in the Step Up Be Heard Program this year, accompanied by Anita Barrow. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to you to Parliament House.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, Darwin High School students are participating in our Step Up Be Heard Program, a revised Youth Parliament. In coming weeks, students will develop their own election campaigns, then the Electoral Commission will oversee an election. The final parliament will debate in this Chamber in late April. All members are more than welcome to participate and attend if they can.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received complaints and concerns from all parts of this parliament. I have heard the concerns which I share. I will be writing to the Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee, Hon John Elferink, asking that Question Time be looked at with the possibility of reforms. For example, in the House of Representatives there is one point of order on relevance per question. I will ask the Chairman to report back to this Chamber in regard to Question Time and any possible reforms that may or may not be required.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, perhaps I have not made it clear that when I put members on a warning, I do not expect to hear interjections such as, ‘Chuck him out’. By putting a member on a warning, I am not casting any aspersion upon them as a member or a minister; it is because they are showing disrespect to the Chair of this Chamber, which is inappropriate.
I assure honourable members it is not a personal direction at any member on any side, or the Independent; it is because respect needs to be shown to the Chair of this Chamber and this parliament. It is my job to ensure that respect is shown to all sides, all members and all participants of this parliament.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that during the current session of the Assembly that Standing Order 109(3)(b) be reworded in the following terms:
(b) the time for the answer of each question shall be sufficient to allow for the minister to provide an appropriate answer.
Before walking into the House today, I informed you we would be deferring this motion until tomorrow. I note the behaviour of opposition members which concerns us on this side of the House has not, in any way, changed. We noted the one warning five seconds from the end of Question Time.
Nevertheless, we will defer this, but we will bring it on tomorrow if we remain unsatisfied with a resultant improvement from the members opposite in relation to their conduct and their ongoing breaches of standing orders wilfully, deliberately, and with intent of mischief.
Madam Speaker, I move that this debate be adjourned until tomorrow morning ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! The member for Fannie Bay is on his feet and should get the call. The member for Port Darwin did not seek leave to continue his remarks; he has made a mistake and the member for Fannie Bay, under standing orders, should get the call.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fannie Bay.
Ms Walker: You just had the call, member for Fannie Bay. It has been acknowledged.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, please continue.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. I seek leave, if it is so precious to you, to continue my remarks at a later date.
Leave denied.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! Yet another occasion where the government is trying to gag the opposition. They bring forward a motion, we seek to speak to that motion and the government is trying to gag us.
Mr Elferink: Happy to bring it on now.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: You do not have the call, member for Karama.
Mr Elferink: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, we will go ahead with this.
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! You might need to seek advice from the Clerk, but my understanding is once you seek leave to continue remarks at a later date you conclude your remarks and do not get a second opportunity to talk, you have lost the call.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, continue.
Mr ELFERINK: It is incredible, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. Talk about leading with your chin.
I have repeatedly said in this House that if they continue to conduct themselves as they do regarding standing orders in Question Time, I would bring on a motion. They have chosen to ignore that. We gave notice of a motion yesterday. You would think they would read the Notice Paper and pay attention to the motion we brought forward yesterday. They have not.
We are up to about 60 or 65 frivolous points of order in the last couple of weeks in this House. That is just abominable, dreadful behaviour.
I came into this House and said, ‘Rather than bringing on this motion today we will defer it until tomorrow’. Because they are trying to make and win a little point about how this House proceeds, what they have effectively done is brought on the debate right now. Rather than have negotiation behind the scenes, so they can make a point they are happy to lose the war for the sake of winning a skirmish. Good luck to them ...
Ms Lawrie: Seriously? You want to gag opposition!
Mr ELFERINK: It shows you how immature …
Mr Vowles: Gagging us again.
Mr ELFERINK: I would like to hear from the members opposite what gag is in this. It does not, in any way, deprive the members opposite of an opportunity to call points of order. It does not, in any way, deprive members opposite of an opportunity to ask a question. It does not deprive the members opposite of any capacity to change their questions in any way. Where is the gag?
I point out to members that the motion changes the three-minute time limit for a ministerial answer to allow sufficient time for the minister to provide an appropriate answer. The reason for that is we spend 30 seconds or a minute in every answer having to watch the Speaker deal with points of order which do not conform or in any way comply with the standing orders of this House. They are continually told not to do it by the Speaker and, nevertheless, they continue to do it.
Before I walked into this House two days ago, I had one of my people upstairs do me the courtesy of noting how many points of order were called by the members opposite. We put it together over three sitting days and the incredible answer is in that period we saw 50 points of order raised which the Speaker responded to by saying, ‘There is no point of order’. That is how this works with Question Time.
We have tolerated it despite our warnings. However, it was brought to a head most recently when the Chief Minister was explaining to this House the effects of the former failed Treasurer’s raid on the kitty in relation to certain community grants. Unfortunately, he was unable to finish his answer in the allotted time by virtue of the fact that repeated points of order were being called by the members opposite which enabled them to engage in a scurrilous, wicked and deliberately deceptive campaign in the public domain. They are good at scandal, wickedness, and deception. Unfortunately, we, on this side of the House, do not believe that in the interests of Northern Territorians we should allow government to effectively be silenced by the tactic of using a point of order to drown out the ministerial answers.
As the Leader of Government Business, I have not been silent on this issue. I have raised it not once, not twice, but at least a dozen times, and warned members opposite we would do something to intervene. Nevertheless, if you look at the last effort from the members opposite during this Question Time the problem has not abated. In fact, it has not even stayed the same. The problem has become amplified under this Opposition Leader.
They have no regard for the rules of this House. They have no regard for the rules of civility generally. We, as a government, will not tolerate an opposition which will use the rules of this House to impede the function of this House. The function of this House is at least, in part, to inform Territorians, through the doctrine of responsible government, what is going on. I remind honourable members who may have forgotten what the doctrine says: the executive is answerable to the parliament, which means the government must come into this parliament under that doctrine and answer to Territorians. Hence, the capacity for members opposite to ask a question. Hence, Question Time.
One would presume if a question is asked, it is because it seeks an answer. When we endeavour to provide answers to the questions asked, we hear continual points of order. We hear continual points of order because they do not like the answers. But, not liking an answer is not a reason to use the rules of this House to undermine the doctrine of responsible government.
We, as a government, as part of point five of our five-point plan in accountability, will continue to ensure we are accountable to the people of the Northern Territory by an appropriate change to the standing orders to enable sufficient time to allow a minister to answer a question, despite the tactic of the members opposite.
This government will try to keep its answers as close to the three-minute limit as we possibly can as a matter of convention. However, if those three minutes are eroded by members opposite in their continual abuse of the point of order, that will have the effect of extending the minister’s time so the minister can complete his answer so the public of the Northern Territory may be appropriately informed.
There is no gag, there is no silencing. It actually means the responsibility falls upon the opposition to ensure that sufficient numbers of questions are asked. If their conduct reflects a reasonable approach to this House without calling tedious, repetitive, and often mischievous points of order, then the requisite number of questions will continue to be answered. However, if they want to engage in conduct where we see a minister on their feet for 10 minutes because that minister is not being given a fair opportunity to comply with his or her duty in the doctrine of responsible government, then so be it!
If this motion passes, as I hope it will ...
Mr Wood: I will be very surprised if it does not.
Mr ELFERINK: I always give credit to this House, member for Nelson, because it should work for the benefit of Territorians. Currently, because of the mischief which is being conducted by the members opposite, that benefit is not being realised.
Madam Speaker, as far as we, on this side of the House, are concerned, the government must move to protect its duty to report fulsomely and wholesomely to the people of the Northern Territory. The ball is now in the opposition’s court. If they choose to conduct themselves poorly, then, as a result of that conduct alone, they can expect answers to questions will be longer than they necessarily have to be. The ball is in the opposition’s court and I am interested in what they have to say.
Mr McCarthy: Do you call that punishment, John?
Mr ELFERINK: No, it is not punishment.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, we are not surprised the CLP’s response to the Wanguri by-election of only three or four days ago is to break another promise. The CLP promised to be open and accountable, now they are seeking to change standing orders so they can answer fewer questions in Question Time. We are not surprised they are breaking another promise, because they cannot surprise us anymore; they cannot disappoint the voters of the Northern Territory any more than they already have. We are not surprised their response to the Wanguri by-election result is to change the rules of parliament to answer fewer questions in Question Time ...
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! You are correct. I was on the booth and all they were talking to me about was points of order in Question Time. It was a very clear, loud message I heard on the day about points of order in Question Time. Congratulations for bringing that forward.
Mr GUNNER: We are not surprised their decision is to change the rules of standing orders to answer fewer questions and provide less scrutiny in parliament. We are not surprised that is how they choose to conduct their business. They are hypocrites. This is what they asked for when they were in opposition, along with the Independent member for Nelson; this is their reform. The lesson of this CLP is it is one thing in opposition and another thing in government. They will say one thing before the election and do another thing afterwards. This is their reform, they now do not want the scrutiny and want to answer fewer questions in Question Time.
Where did we learn about points of order? We learnt from the government when they were in opposition. The member for Port Darwin was king. The CLP still holds all the records. The member for Darwin said we raised 50 points of order in three days. We are trying to meet the current government’s standard, because in one day they raised 27 points of order. We cannot even hope to compete. We are a little over 15 a day.
The record for the most frivolous point of order sits with the member for Port Darwin. He has the award. I do not know if he has a trophy in his cabinet, but he said, ‘A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! Could we ban this minister from red cordial during lunch, please?’ That was his point of order. They hold the record for the most points of order in one day, and for the most frivolous.
We are not surprised they are choosing to change standing orders to provide less scrutiny in this House so their ministers can talk for as long as they want in answering a question, and they have to answer fewer questions in this Chamber.
We are surprised they will remove a protection of the three-minute rule for their gaffe-prone Cabinet. I am stunned the member for Port Darwin would use the example of the Chief Minister answering the question on Glenti. He said there were community events under threat and listed them. There is only one government at the moment, and the only threat to the Glenti is the government. They started the rumour by saying community events were under threat and then complained about it spreading.
It was probably the worst dorothy dixer we have heard in the history of this Chamber, and they used it as an example. We would welcome the member for Blain, the Chief Minister, talking for 20 minutes on that. To say there were community events under threat was an extraordinary dorothy dixer to use in this Chamber. There is only one government in this Territory that could threaten these community events. The Chief Minister told us about threatening them and then complained that people were upset. It was an extraordinary own goal from a dorothy dixer.
Now they will remove the time limit format so the Chief Minister can stuff his answers up for as long as he wants. They are removing a protection for their Cabinet.
The member for Port Darwin is quite smart. He carries the government on his shoulders by doing most of the work in the Chamber. The other side does not necessarily appreciate that. On this side we do; we see the amount of work he does. He knows this is a protection but he has been asked to remove it by his party. It is extraordinary; he does all the grunt and grime work. They might not appreciate you, John, but we appreciate the amount of work you do. We do not agree with much of what you do, but we know you work hard. We believe you understand you are removing a protection for your gaffe-prone Cabinet.
We are not surprised you are breaking another promise, but we are surprised you are removing protections for your ministers because they make many mistakes. Now they will make more because they will be off the chain. We are expecting some very long answers after these reforms come through, and some very bad answers. We are quite surprised you are choosing to go down this path.
We have an amendment to the motion, if you want to bring it on. I am not sure if you will choose to move it today or take it to the Standing Orders Committee, but I have an amendment which I am happy to move now.
I move an amendment to the motion in the following terms. Before the words proposed to be substituted by the Leader of Government Business, Standing Order 109(3)(a) be amended to:
(a) the time allowed for questions shall be sufficient for the member to ask the question in an appropriate manner.
Obviously, if they go down this path and change how answers are given, then it should also be applied to how questions are asked.
That is the amendment we are moving from the floor, or to take it to Standing Orders Committee, as has also been flagged by the member for Port Darwin. That is my amendment I have moved it; I believe I need to sign that now?
Mr Elferink: Yes, and circulate it.
Mr GUNNER: I have signed it. Our amendment to the motion is that what applies to answers should apply to questions, if they choose to go down this path. We are not surprised they are breaking an election promise; we are surprised they are removing a protection.
Our position, member for Port Darwin, is if you choose to go down this path, what applies to answers given in this House should also apply to the questions. We can continue to deal with it on the floor here or it can go to the Standing Orders Committee. That decision is in your hands.
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! Can I get clarification on what we are now debating, please?
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: We will speak to the original question and the amendment.
Mr MILLS (Chief Minister): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I believe they make too much of this and read too little into it.
Mr Wood: It sounds like Shakespeare.
Mr MILLS: Yes, it does. There are standing orders which need to guide and govern our discussions in this Chamber. As a part of your response to this motion you say it is an attempt for us to answer fewer questions and be less accountable. It is, in fact, the opposite.
Through the misuse of the standing orders provision by the opposition, we have been prohibited from answering the said question because of your tactics. Our concern is that the points of order being raised are clearly not points of order but a mechanism to prevent the government from giving a response. If you are concerned about the opportunity for government to be accountable, that is what this is about. It is to ensure government has the capacity to answer the question because the tactic of the opposition is the opposite.
I reflect on your fine defence of this measure to correct this matter for which you have brought the need for correction, where you used an historical reference. There were a great many points of order at a particular point in time. If your memory is clear on that, it was when the former Speaker was being quite specific about the need for answers to be relevant. If you recall, the former government would go all over the place, and those points of order were to ensure they stayed on track. By the use of those points of order, we were able to move on.
We now have the misuse of points of order. The question is for the Speaker to consider means to deal with this problem. We are offering a solution. If you really want to hold the government to account, do not use the tactics you are using, use a real point of order. Hold them to account and provide a warning if that trespass continues. The government can be held to account and given the opportunity to answer questions properly without being hindered in so doing.
My colleague, the Leader of Government Business, has said - and this is our position - we are not seeking unlimited time to speak. We are seeking the opportunity to speak and not be blocked by the misuse of parliamentary process. That is what this is about; there is a problem which needs to be fixed, so we propose the fix is to give members the opportunity to complete their remarks. We are not using this as a means to speak for as long as we like; however, at the moment we have three minutes and you are using about half of that with frivolous points of order which need to be pulled up. Let us get on and ensure we run our business well.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, this is a very important debate and one we should all be concerned about. I will give my reasons why.
The introduction of this motion today shows complete disregard by the Attorney-General for the conventional process of bringing amendments to the Standing Orders Committee for discussion before approval is given by parliament. I read from the website of the Legislative Assembly, Committees - Standing Orders:
When Standing Order 109(3)(b) was introduced it said the answer to each question should not exceed three minutes. That amendment was made after it was considered by the Standing Orders Committee. This was supported by the Country Liberal Party members for Sanderson and Greatorex in their submission to the Standing Orders Committee on 23 January 2009. They said:
There was bipartisan support for these changes which have worked well since they were introduced into parliament.
For the government to bring this directly to the floor of the House without first taking it to the Standing Orders Committee shows the arrogance of a government which cares little for proper process and dictatorially rides over any opposition. It is an example of the government acting like a spoilt child when it did not get its way.
It is also a deliberate slap in the face to the Speaker who is the arbiter of proceedings during Question Time. The government is saying to you, Madam Speaker, ‘We do not like your interpretation of the rules, especially in relation to points of order, so we will change the rules so your ruling will be inconsequential’. Perhaps, Madam Speaker, you are given the cold shoulder by your party for not toeing the party line, such as your outspoken comments on the closure of the Humpty Doo Fire Station.
My first concern is the deliberate circumventing by the Attorney-General of the traditional process of bringing changes to standing orders through the Standing Orders Committee first, and then to parliament. Unfortunately, this is what is happening today. I hope the Attorney-General changes his mind but, knowing the Attorney-General, and as he said in his opening speech, I doubt if he will do that. Regardless of all the philosophical quotes he may recite and how much he espouses the importance of parliamentary procedures and our democratic principles, he knows he has the numbers. It is now the case of the power and the glory.
What is the Attorney-General trying to do and why? He has become annoyed by what he considers frivolous points of order which did not seem to be a problem when he was in opposition. He called 23 points of order during Question Time on 27 March 2012, but he is upset now because he is in government and does not like the number of points of order the opposition is raising.
He also does not like the interpretation the Speaker has ruled on the points of order. To get around that he changes the rules. To add insult to injury, he avoids the convention of first taking this matter to the Standing Orders Committee, thereby avoiding a potential defeat because the Speaker sits on that committee. If the Speaker voted against this change he would not have the numbers, so he has conveniently avoided the process as he could see this motion might easily be defeated in the committee stage and that would be an embarrassment. This is cunning, Attorney-General, and you get your own way.
However, this is a bad sign of how government should rule. If there had been a chance to discuss this at the Standing Orders Committee as a form of compromise as to what might be put forward today, perhaps this could have been achieved. For instance, I would leave the present clause as it is and allow for the clock to be stopped when there was a point of order. That would still allow three minutes for an answer.
My second major concern is what is being proposed will now take us back to the primitive and unenlightened days of Question Time under the CLP in the 1990s. I sat in that Chamber many times and listened to Question Time, and did waffle take over!
There will be a reduced number of questions, and Question Time will just be a time for the minister to drag out a question to avoid scrutiny. The words used by the Attorney-General, ‘an appropriate answer’, will be interpreted so broadly that Question Time will become a farce, and long-winded answers the order of the day.
If we need to define what ‘appropriate’ means, in the Macquarie Dictionary, ‘appropriate’ means ‘suitable or fitting for that particular purpose’ - very broad. Government ministers will love that interpretation!
There are too many frivolous points of order. I listen and I cannot see where they sit, necessarily, with some of our standing order numbers. However, we have a Speaker; let the Speaker decide on that. This amendment shows a total disregard for the committee system. It is the Attorney-General’s need to vent his frustration at what has been happening by punishing the Speaker because of her independence. Why could the concern of the Attorney-General have not gone to the Standing Orders Committee to look at other ways of addressing this problem? Example: limit the number of points of order; stop the clock when there is a point of order; or have a minimum number of questions that have to be asked. But, no, we have this way. This is the Attorney-General’s way or nothing else. If you do not like it, you can lump it.
It is also amazing that when government was in opposition it called for changes to parliamentary procedures, more time for scrutinising the government at estimates, and an opening up of the Council of Territory Cooperation for questioning of ministers. It is now a different story since it won government. They change the rules to suit themselves, not for the benefit of the parliament.
We had a bad law pass through parliament the other day with the mandatory sentencing bill, now we have a bad standing order being rushed through, not based on what is good for the people but what is good for the government. It looks as if power has gone to the heads of some in government, and that is a worrying sign for this parliament.
It might surprise you, Attorney-General, I am concerned about the number of points of order because I also like to listen to questions. My real issue is we should be taking this to the Standing Orders Committee and discussing it with a range of options, if this is a real issue. I believe it is an issue, but this is not the right process to achieve that. Basically, it says you do not accept the Speaker’s rulings on these things and that it should go through the Standing Orders Committee and then come back to parliament, as I believe it should.
Whilst I have some sympathy for what you are doing, I do not agree with the process of what has been put forward. It undermines the committee system. A simple amendment you bring forward, without any choice of options or alternatives, is a bad way to introduce changes to the standing orders.
My big concern is that, although I heard the Chief Minister say this will give ministers time to answer questions properly - and I accept that - this will be abused because the very wording is the wording you, as Attorney-General and lawmaker minister, would love, because it says, ‘sufficient to allow for the minister to provide an appropriate answer’. Who will rule on whether it is sufficient to allow for the minister to provide an appropriate answer?
If I make a point of order to Madam Speaker and say, ‘Madam Speaker, this is not an appropriate answer’, I am sure, member for Port Darwin, you will pull out the Macquarie Dictionary - probably any other dictionary that relates to this matter - and say, ‘The answer is suitable and fitting for this particular purpose’. Therefore, we will not be able to restrain a person from carrying on for more than three minutes. There is no guarantee this will not do what you are saying it will do; that is, allow the same number of questions we have now to be achieved.
I see it as a retrograde step that goes back to Question Time in parliament in the 1990s. I used to walk out of here because I used to hear ministers go for I do not how long, just filling in time. The greatest change we brought to this parliament was introducing time limits.
I am all for some way of controlling frivolous points of order. That is where, through the Standing Orders Committee, it is raised with the Speaker. This seems to be a backdoor way of trying to bring about those changes. I would rather the normal process be considered and that members of the Standing Orders Committee bring forth possible ways of achieving what you are trying to do. Then we can come back to parliament, hopefully, with an agreed formula for any improvements needed.
In this process, we have to lump it or like it. As you said, you have the numbers. At least in the Standing Orders Committee we could have a discussion without having the confinement of trying to debate in parliament where you get one say and that is it. The advantage of the Standing Orders Committee is I can debate to and fro with any member on that committee. We can go on for as long as we like, and, hopefully, come up with a sensible solution. We cannot do it now because this is a done deal ...
Mr Elferink: You might be surprised.
Mr WOOD: Attorney-General, I would be happy to be surprised. I was surprised today about the $20 MVR fee. I am rapt. I am putting a case that I hope will convince you. As I said, I am not opposed to some tightening of the procedures, but I have faith in the Speaker because that is why we have a Speaker. I have faith in the committee system, which is there to allow us to debate these issues without the formality and restrictions you have debating here. I am just putting a case to say do not go down this path. Let us debate it through the Standing Orders Committee and see if we can come back with something we can all agree on for the betterment of debate in this parliament. That is what we are trying to achieve.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I was not going to participate in this debate, but I have reconsidered and decided I will. I come from the perspective of someone who has sat in that Chair, Madam Speaker. I appreciate the challenges of doing the job of Speaker, Deputy Speaker or Acting Deputy Speaker.
There was a period in the final sittings week in 2011 when Speaker Aagaard, due to ill health, was unable to take the chair for Question Time in this Chamber. For the first time in my years as Deputy Speaker, I took the Chair for Question Time. I have been back through those three Question Times. On the second day I chaired Question Time, on 30 November, I delivered a little homily, Madam Speaker, as you have today, warning members about the very large volume of frivolous points of order. I do not know that it did much good because on that day there were no fewer than 21 points of order from the then CLP opposition, most of which were quite frivolous. Featuring in those points of order were the members for Fong Lim and Katherine, there was one from the former member for Drysdale and, of course, the member for Port Darwin, included a frivolous point of order which came in some 15 seconds out from the former Chief Minister, Paul Henderson, answering a question.
The new government, now they are on those benches, wanting to turn around the standing orders because they no longer suit their needs or purposes is incredibly hypocritical. That is what we are learning and seeing from this new government. Like the member for Nelson said, the process that has been followed is disappointing. It is basically, ‘We have the numbers on this side, we have a mandate and we will do as we please’. That is essentially what the message is. That is incredibly arrogant and it is disappointing that the process is not being followed as it might be.
I support the amendment my colleague, the member for Fannie Bay, has made, and I commend that amended motion to the House, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of students of Charles Darwin University accompanied by Alan Day. On behalf of honourable member, I extend to you a warm welcome and I hope you enjoy your time at Parliament House.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I have listened with interest to what members have had to say and I am not unmindful of it. However, I remind honourable members that when I stood before I tried to defer this motion so further discussion could be held. Because the leader of opposition business was so busy trying to win a skirmish, they potentially have set themselves up to lose the war.
I was trying to take this motion and put it forward on the Notice Paper for discussion in the future so we could deal with all of the issues which have been raised today. Unfortunately, because they were too busy being smarty pants and being clever because I moved something rather than sought leave, they forced this to be brought on.
I am not delighted at having to bluster my way through this so we can get this resolved. I have sat on the Standing Orders Committee in the term of this current Legislative Assembly and talked about exactly the things the member for Nelson has just been talking about regarding stopping the clock, because I knew if we did not go down that path, at some point in the future this would come to a head. It has now come to a head ...
Mr Westra van Holthe: That is where we are now.
Mr ELFERINK: That is where we are now. I pick up on the amendment by the members opposite in relation to questions. We do not come close to obeying standing orders when it comes to questions asked in this House:
How many times do we hear an argument put to this House with a question mark tacked on the end of it?
The current Chief Minister, the failed Treasurer – imputations. For goodness sake, how many times do we hear imputations? In almost every question.
Ministers should not be asked opinions to announce new policies for governments or for legal opinions. The last one is the only one we conform with, but because we enjoy free and flowing debate in this House, we tolerate standing order beaches of that nature.
I do not jump to my feet and call a point of order when I hear an argument, an inference, an imputation, epithet, or an ironical expression in every question. Do you believe I or we on this side of the House are unmindful that we have a duty to ensure this House runs in a proper fashion? We ignore standing orders as often as we obey them.
I become very frustrated when I hear members opposite talking about the hypocrisy of this government. I go back to the time when the member for Nelson was referring to answers being too long. Yes, they were way too long. Those answers were often tomes in their own right when they were printed in the Parliamentary Record.
That is why the new government, under Labor, introduced these time limits. We did not resist because it tightened up Question Time. As time has passed - and I will not point the finger at any side here - the point of order has decayed from a way of getting adjudication on the rules into a parliamentary tactic specifically designed to silence a minister.
When I went into the Standing Orders Committee the last time, I said to the members, ‘Let us find a way we can keep the answers down to three minutes, but we have to negotiate points of order’. Unfortunately, my predicted outcome when that was rejected has now arrived.
I was anxious to negotiate with the other side on this issue. Time did not permit yesterday. Time would have probably permitted today, which is why I sought to defer this motion. However, because it is about a tactic in this House rather than a result, all they were interested in was winning the tactical game. You had your win. You have won. You have brought the motion on despite the fact I was trying to give it some breathing space.
Now we find ourselves in a situation where we have to navigate through this problem today on the floor, rather than sitting down in a room out the back, sorting it out between ourselves and coming up with a solution. I would have been happy to withdraw this motion had I been able to navigate a way through this. If we had sat down in the back room and referred it to the Standing Orders Committee to deal with and address these issues as we needed, then goodness gracious me, this would all be over and we would not be wasting parliament’s time at $5000 an hour talking about Standing Order 112, Standing Order 113, etcetera.
That is the way it has been done. You have to be a little astute when you are sitting in the leader of opposition business’s chair; you have to be alive to what is going on. When the Leader of Government Business says, ‘I want to defer this and move that we hear it at a later date’ - I made a blue, big deal. I did not seek leave I made a motion; that is my crime for the morning. Yes, there is the tactic, ‘We will pick up on that and bring the motion on now’. There you go, it is on now.
I am more than happy, as I have indicated on any number of occasions, to sort this out. I have counselled, warned and complained on repeated occasions in this House about this tactic, yet I have had no comments from the other side or discussions about how we should deal with it. I am not pleased about the concept of overriding a parliamentary committee which is, effectively, what this motion would do.
I am also mindful of the many things I have had to say sitting in the leader of opposition business’s chair over the years. Irrespective of all that nonsense about us trying to ride roughshod over the House, I am prepared to have another go at this, which is what I wanted to negotiate behind the scenes before everybody went off half-cocked
Madam Speaker, if the House concurs, I seek leave to have this motion deferred indefinitely until such time as the Standing Orders Committee can look at it and report on it with a solution to the problem.
Leave granted.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr GILES (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to repeal the Places of Public Entertainment Act. The Places of Public Entertainment Act can be traced back to an ordinance of 1949 that was modelled on similar legislation in South Australia. The act enables a system of licensing for places of public entertainment and prescribes various matters that must be undertaken by licensees. The kinds of places of entertainment that would require licences under the act in the Territory are cinemas, stage theatres, public halls, community centres, school halls, church halls, public library meeting rooms, pinball parlours, tenpin bowing centres, skating centres, dance halls and adult shops. The act does not apply to places that are licensed under the Liquor Act.
The intent of the act is to ensure places of public entertainment have proper sanitary arrangements, are protected against the risk of fire, have appropriate firefighting equipment, provide for safe exit and sufficient means to exit in the case of a fire, and provide for the safety and convenience of the public generally.
There is other Territory legislation which covers the same sector the act seeks to regulate, most notably the Building Code of Australia, which is adopted in the Territory through the Building Act and sets the minimum standards and requirements for construction of building ensuring the latest available technology is adopted. The Building Code sets building standards on structure, fire resistance levels, access and egress, fire safety services and equipment, health and amenity, and maintenance.
Other Territory legislation includes the Electricity Reform Act and Regulations which deal with electrical installations and safety standards, the Fire and Emergency Act and Regulations which promote the prevention of fire and the safety of patrons, and the Public and Environmental Health Act and Regulations which set out the health and hygiene requirements. For this reason, administration of the act would result in duplication of the regulation of businesses that provide public entertainment.
The act is derived from the South Australian Places of Public Entertainment legislation. It is worth noting that in 1995, South Australia repealed its legislation mainly due to the fact that the ambit of regulation was covered by the Building Code.
The bill has much to recommend it as an example of sensible and considered reduction of unnecessary regulation and red tape for businesses which provide entertainment to the public. The bill will also remove outmoded legislation that is no longer required or relevant to Territorians today.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill. In closing, this is just another area where the new Country Liberals government is trying to remove bureaucracy and red tape and help businesses in the Northern Territory.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 5 December 2012.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I thank the Attorney-General for bringing this bill before the House. I assure you I will be on my feet briefly.
The opposition supports this bill and recognises the amendments are critical to make the Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2011 workable, and to deliver on its intent. Importantly, the bill delivers amendments which make clear that when a person has been charged with an offence, and the alleged victim is under 16 years of age, a close relative of the defendant will not be able to apply to be excused from giving evidence.
I understand, prior to these amendments, while section 12 of the act provides that every person is competent and compellable to give evidence, there are exceptions, albeit limited. By bringing in the amendments in section 19, the close relative of a defendant charged with an offence involving a child under the age of 16 will not be excused from giving evidence. An exception will not be recognised.
The evidence of a spouse, a partner, or a close relative of a defendant in cases involving children under 18 can be some of the most valuable evidence, as the Attorney-General pointed out in his second reading speech, necessary to obtain a finding of guilt.
The opposition welcomes this amendment, recognising the protection of children and prosecution of offenders causing harm to children is a key priority for the community. We support and welcome the amendments which, effectively, remove a legal loophole whereby previously close relatives could make application to be excused from giving evidence.
The amendment to right a drafting error in section 19(b) where the word ‘offender’ will be replaced by the words ‘alleged victim’ is clearly a straightforward matter which corrects what the Attorney-General labels an absurdity.
I note also the consequential amendments as outlined in the explanatory statement to the Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2011 to take into account the omission of section 19(a) and a change of drafting practice.
Madam Speaker, I thank the Attorney-General’s Office for the briefing I received on this and other bills. The opposition most certainly supports this bill and commends it to the House.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I note we are pushing up against lunch. I will be lucky to be on my feet long enough to make it to lunch. In fact, I was contemplating not even jumping and just letting it pass.
I place on the record my thanks to the shadow Attorney-General for her efforts and diligence in relation to this. Because of the way she goes about this business, taking advantage of the briefings we offer through the Office of the Attorney-General, we end up having not to deal with the technical issues but the broader issues of bills.
For example, if there is a bill they have a problem with on a principled or philosophical ground, the briefing will enable them to understand all of the technical issues, which will enable them to come into this House with an enhanced argument for their philosophical objection to something. For arguments sake, with mandatory sentencing, the members opposite came into this Chamber last week with a clear understanding of the mechanical operation of the bill. The argument was where it should be for this Chamber in relation to the ideas that were at a point of conflict.
By getting briefings, the shadow Attorney-General enables this House to run more smoothly. I commend her for that and recommend that continues. I will make certain, wherever possible and whenever requested, those briefings will continue so the business of this House can be done more effectively and professionally.
There is no philosophical point of difference on anything contained in this bill. That was clearly identified by the shadow Attorney-General, the member for Nhulunbuy. I thank her for her support for the bill. It is a commonsense bill which deals with some absurdities and a couple of other issues
Madam Speaker, there is nothing else to say other than allowing this bill to pass into the law of the Northern Territory.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill be read a third time.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Member for Brennan
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I request a leave of absence for the member for Brennan for Thursday, 21 February 2013, pursuant to Standing Order 25, to attend an oil and gas conference in Perth.
Leave granted.
PETITION
Barkly Regional Sports Infrastructure
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 361 petitioners praying the Barkly Regional Sports Infrastructure Program in the growth towns of Borroloola, Elliott and Ali Curung is funded. The petition bears the Clerk’s signature that it conforms to the requirements of standing orders.
Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, given the visionary and very significant announcement by the Chief Minister last week on what is referred to as gas to Gove, it is timely that I provide an update on the exciting new developments in oil and gas projects and discoveries in the Northern Territory, and outline the enormous benefits growing this industry will bring for Territorians.
As I stated previously in this House, there is no doubt the mining industry is fundamentally important to the Territory. In 2010-11 this sector accounted for almost 17.5% of the Northern Territory’s economy, the single biggest contributor by far.
We all know mining has been a key driver of the Territory economy for decades. There is good reason for that; the Northern Territory has a tremendous natural wealth. We have an abundance of minerals and geological research that indicate the possibility of an abundance of oil and gas reserves just waiting to be discovered.
Of course, it is not enough that we have these resources, you need a government willing to take that message to the world, to the key international mining and petroleum industry representatives, to say the Territory is open for business and the potential for discovering minerals, oil and gas is huge.
It is no exaggeration to say the resource sector is the cornerstone of our economy, our long-term prosperity and, I go as far as to say, increasingly, it is responsible for our quality of life.
I share with you today a new reckoning of just how important the resource hub is. Currently, there is a host of significant investments in exploration, development and production either under way or under consideration in the Northern Territory and broader Timor Sea region.
Mining in the Territory directly employs nearly 4000 people including many Indigenous Territorians, with many more people indirectly employed through related industries. While these figures all attest to the strength and importance of the Northern Territory’s resource industry today, this government is committed to growing the resources sector in order to increase the future prosperity and development of the Territory, particularly in our regional areas. This means boosting minerals and energy exploration across the Northern Territory in the short term so new discoveries can be made which will become the new mining and energy projects of tomorrow.
Last month I gave the keynote address to the 5th Annual Australian American Chamber of Commerce Energy Conference in Houston, Texas. It was an honour to address this conference and present the opportunities for oil and gas development in the Territory. While in Houston my message was simple: the Northern Territory is open and ready for business. Our government is committed to making the Territory one of the best regions in the world in which to invest.
Today I will concentrate solely on oil and gas exploration and extraction, and the support this government is providing to ensure the growth of the energy industry. Shale oil and gas is tipped to become the major new source of Australian exports and it is estimated the Territory has over 200 trillion cubic feet of shale gas resources, but it could be more. In fact, only an hour or so ago I was given a briefing by Falcon Oil and Gas which is exploring in the Beetaloo Basin area.
They have reports which indicate there might be 162 trillion cubic feet of gas in the Beetaloo Basin which makes the words I used before - the 200 trillion - pale into insignificance because 162 is a fair part of that and much more of the Territory is open. To put that into context, 2 trillion cubic feet of gas is generally considered large enough to support a commercial production operation. If the estimates are right, our reserves could be described as being enough for 100, perhaps even more, commercial operations.
Despite the fragile international economy, I am pleased to tell you there is more good news for the NT. Countries in the Asia-Pacific region are especially hungry for the energy and minerals needed to fuel their growth and build a better quality of life for their citizens. This has created an unprecedented opportunity for the Territory to grow and diversify the markets for its natural resources. The Asia-Pacific region is rapidly becoming the centre of gravity for economic growth. Demand for energy in the Asian region is increasing rapidly and the NT is perfectly positioned to meet that demand.
Australian petroleum and gas production hit a new record in the September 2012 quarter, up 33% from the previous corresponding quarter. The EnergyQuest quarterly report published in December 2012 indicated quarterly petroleum production rose to a record 143.2 million barrels of oil equivalent, reflecting record natural gas production of 611 petajoules in the same period.
In October last year, Commonwealth Resources minister, Martin Ferguson, told the Australian Pipeline Industry Association conference that the country’s refining capacity was rising along with exports and he stated:
As reported in the Arab Times on 3 October 2012, and I quote in part:
The Australian Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics report dated October 2012 noted:
The Territory is ideally placed to provide a full range of both offshore oil and gas and onshore unconventional gas. We are recognised as Australia’s second key offshore supply hub for the oil and gas industry. We are the gateway to Asia. Approximately 95% of total cargo exported from Darwin’s East Arm Wharf in 2011-12 went to 15 Asian countries, predominantly China and Indonesia.
In order to accommodate the increase in offshore exploration and drilling activity to our north, a dedicated Marine Supply Base is under construction, due to be completed by September 2013. The Marine Supply Base will increase Darwin’s capacity to support offshore oil and gas developments in northern Australia, including the operations in the Arafura and Timor Seas and Browse Basin. This modern dedicated facility is designed to allow fast turnaround times and improve overall logistics efficiency.
During the INPEX Ichthys pipeline construction, the Marine Supply Base will serve as a load-out facility for armour rock to protect the gas export pipeline. It will:
(1) increase the number of rig tender vessels working out of Darwin
(2) allow local businesses that support the offshore oil and gas industry to grow
(3) attract new investment and business opportunities to provide services to support the offshore oil and gas industry that are not currently available in the Northern Territory.
The design of the base caters for three marine berths with fuel, water, chemical, and drilling mud connections; hard-sand and lay-down areas; warehousing; waste management facility; storage capacity for drilling muds, chemicals, water and fuel; office space; and associated facilities. In short, it will improve the efficiency of the Darwin East Arm Wharf by providing a purpose-built supply base and support facilities. It will have a capacity to service in excess of 1000 vessels per year with a 12-hour turnaround. Construction commenced in April 2012 and is expected to be completed by the end of 2013.
The Marine Supply Base is a key infrastructure investment by government to grow the capability and diversity of our supply and service sector for the oil and gas industry. Growing our supply and service industry is a high priority for this government. Supplementing the Marine Supply Base is an adjacent common user area, and Darwin Business Park of course.
The Ichthys LNG project and growing activity in our region have provided a window of opportunity for expansion of existing supply services businesses and the establishment of new businesses. This growth will boost and broaden our economy but, more importantly, will provide the industry with an increased range of competitively priced supply and service options.
This window of opportunity to grow the supply and service sector exists on a range of fronts. As you would be aware, Territory government agencies have visited overseas service hubs such as Aberdeen, Singapore, Stavanger and Houston to meet with local businesses and representative organisations to understand the extent of industries and the opportunities which might be attracted to set up in the Northern Territory or to partner with existing Territory businesses.
Those agencies have also visited Australia, the United Kingdom, Ireland, the United States, Thailand, the Philippines, and Vietnam identifying where skilled labour might be sourced to ease workforce pressures. This initiative is aimed to help big resource projects, as well as the supply and service industries, and to backfill traditional trades and industries that may lose part of their workforce during a resource construction boom.
Just as importantly, the training and upskilling of Territorians is just as crucial to avoid labour shortages and unsustainable salary increases. The Charles Darwin University, a dual sector institution which delivers both tertiary and trade school training, has been readying for the construction and operations phases of the coming resource sector boom. With funding secured from the Ichthys joint venture, this government, and other contributors, the university has established the North Australian Centre for Oil and Gas and is actively working with industry to secure key teaching staff and to determine training needs. This government is committed to the upskilling of our local workforce to maximise participation in construction and operations of resource projects specifically directed to oil and gas industries. We want to maximise the overall benefit from resource developments for our economy and our community.
We welcome LNG developments, particularly onshore processing, and believe that LNG will be the predominant natural gas consumer in our region for decades to come. We understand the difficulties of bringing to fruition these massive investments and of aligning project time lines for multiple projects. We also understand that other downstream industries can provide significantly greater employment per unit of energy. The Northern Territory oil and gas industry offers outstanding opportunities that are now recognised around the world.
That is why we have been so determined to explore every possible opportunity the gas to Gove challenge has presented us. What has become evident during our discussions to supply gas to Gove is the complete lack of an overarching gas policy for the NT, another deficiency of the former Labor government.
I applaud the Chief Minister of this still new Country Liberal government for the work he has done in delivering our end of the bargain to bring gas to Gove. This was not an easy decision to make. It could not be done four-and-a-half months ago. It could not be done by telephone, as the Leader of the Opposition glibly and ignorantly suggested. There were many issues that needed to be considered. I, for one, am pleased that due consideration was given to all those issues for the benefit of all Territorians. To you, Chief Minister, I say well done.
I also applaud the Chief Minister for putting the Territory and national energy security on the national agenda, something the former NT Labor government also failed to do. If it did not fit into the election cycle, Labor was not interested.
I encourage the new members of this parliament, the members for Nightcliff and Johnston and, of course, the new member for Wanguri, not to fall into the same old tired trap their colleagues fell into and at least think about the strategic future of the Territory. To those new members, please, even though your boss, the Leader of the Opposition, will not like it, I implore you - members for Johnston, Nightcliff, and Wanguri - to think beyond election cycles.
I digress a little. Linking our Territory gas pipelines to the eastern states and the national grid makes sense. It paves the way for competition in gas supply, which is a major factor in reducing energy costs. It also presents many opportunities for onshore gas development in the NT.
The Territory is recognised as one of the leading states or territories in natural gas development and, at the moment, is one of the most prospective jurisdictions in the world for oil and gas exploration. The growing international interest in our oil and gas is easy to explain. The NT has an abundance of the resources the world will need in the decades to come. From a national perspective, there may also be significant interest in the Territory as a gas supply for eastern states.
The Weekend Australian on 19 January this year, ran an article titled, ‘Gas boom won’t keep the home fires burning’. The journalist, Paul Cleary, said he believes we, as a country, are, and I quote in part:
He went on to say:
I point out the journalist made no reference to the territories in that quote, specifically, the NT. Perhaps he is a bit of a prophet because this new Country Liberal government of the Northern Territory is not suffering from policy paralysis at all. I will come back to that in a moment.
The crux of this article is - perhaps the best way to describe it is to use another quote where Mr Cleary asserts:
Can you imagine that? A world – well, Australia at least - where we, being so gas rich, cannot provide for our domestic market.
Back to policy. I mentioned that the current government is not suffering from policy paralysis. The former Labor government did not suffer from policy paralysis either. It was not paralysed, it was dead in the water, floating like a dead duck on a pond of debt. Labor’s lack of major policies and consideration was never on its radar which, frankly, makes the contributions of the members opposite last week on the Chief Minister’s statement on gas to Gove that much more irrelevant, shallow, and meaningless.
With a view to creating an energy policy which will serve the interests of Territorians for generations to come, I have commenced work on the development of an energy directorate within the Department of Mines and Energy. This high-level group will be responsible for informing the minister on the development of an overarching energy policy for the NT. This group will consist of professionals with the required experience and expertise in the resource industry but, crucially, this new initiative by our government will provide a strategic framework to grow the Territory’s oil and gas industry. It is this type of vision and commitment to the long-term development that the people of the Northern Territory can expect from this government.
As I have already stated, the NT oil and gas sector is a significant part of the NT’s economy. As a real government, we are committed to ensuring these resources are developed responsibly and to the maximum benefit of all Territorians. We must also broaden our market reach to match our resource potential. It is a strategic priority for our government, which is why as strong as the Territory’s resource advantage is today, we continue to explore ways to ensure the NT remains a destination of choice for resource investors around the world.
The history of Darwin’s story as a burgeoning centre for oil and gas commenced in earnest 25 years ago when the Montara field was first discovered in March 1988 by BHP Billiton, 650 km west of Darwin. The Thailand-based company PTTEP Australasia currently controls 100% of this project that includes four oil fields, Montara, Skua, Swift and Swallow.
Also in the Timor Sea, 500 km offshore of Darwin and 250 km south of Timor-Leste, the Bayu oil field was discovered in early 1995 followed by the Undan fields a few months later. The operator is ConocoPhillips. Commercial production began in April 2004 and the second phase of Bayu-Undan’s development, the gas phase, began production two years later.
The extracted lean gas is transported to Darwin via a 500 km pipeline where it is liquefied at a single-train processing plant at Wickham Point, producing 3.6 million tonnes of LNG for export annually. Wickham Point was authorised for 10 million tonnes of LNG per year and ConocoPhillips is keen to add a second processing train. The Australian Business Unit President, Mr Todd Creeger, advised last year’s September South East Asia Australia Offshore Conference in Darwin:
The Browse Basin fields that Todd makes reference to include Poseidon and Phase 2 of an exploration program led by ConocoPhillips with joint venture partner Karoon Gas. This program commenced in the first quarter of 2012 and, by October last year, the exploration well was reporting a strong flow rate at 30 million cubic feet a day.
In September 2009, Eni started production from its 100% owned and operated Blacktip field in the southern Bonaparte Gulf. Gas from Blacktip, once processed through an onshore gas plant, supplies the Power and Water Corporation. In times to come, thanks to the efforts of the Chief Minister, Terry Mills, that gas is expected to reach the Gove refinery so the future prosperity of the whole of East Arnhem can be assured for some time to come. I should add that the Territory government supports Eni’s aspirations for the expansion of the Blacktip facilities into a regional gas collection hub.
The Sunrise and Troubadour gas and condensate fields, collectively known as the Greater Sunrise fields, are located 150 km southeast of Timor-Leste, and 450 km northwest of Darwin. Discovered in 1974, current joint venture partners are operators Woodside with ConocoPhillips, Shell and Osaka Gas. Discussions continue with the Timor-Leste government towards development.
The Kitan oil field also situated in the joint petroleum development area between Australia and Timor-Leste is notable for the fast-track time line scales of only three years and nine months from discovery to start up. This joint venture, led by Italian oil giant, Eni with INPEX and Talisman Resources, saw the first oil achieved in October 2011 using Bluewater’s upgraded Glas Dowr floating production storage and offloading system. Eni has also been active for MEO Australia further east at Evans Shoal.
A little over a year ago, INPEX Corporation and Total SA confirmed their final investment decision on the Ichthys LNG project, the largest discovery of hydrocarbon liquids in Australia during the last 40 years, estimated at more than 527 million barrels of oil. This signalled the start of construction of one of the world’s largest LNG facilities at Blaydin Point based on an estimated 40 years of gas and condensate which will be transported to the onshore processing facilities by an 889 km pipeline from the Western Australia coast. Blaydin Point has the capacity to support two initial LNG trains and accommodate up to six LNG trains in total for further expansion. The Ichthys project is expected to produce 8.4 million tonnes of LNG and 1.6 million tonnes of LPG per annum, along with approximately 100 000 barrels of condensate per day at peak.
INPEX is also involved in the Abadi gas field located at the Masela block, Arafura Sea, holding a 60% participating interest, with Shell holding a 30% interest. A floating LNG plant is envisaged for Stage 1 development and, although in Indonesian waters, the potential hub for service and supply is Darwin. The subsea front end engineering and design contract has been awarded with a separate contract for the floating LNG facilities to follow in due course.
Royal Dutch Shell, which has the Prelude and Concerto gas fields, has indicated it will use Darwin as a maintenance base for a floating processing plant for LNG from the Prelude field which is also off the WA coast. Floating LNG concepts have been identified as technically feasible and economically viable options for north Australian waters with the additional benefit of a lighter environmental footprint. Shell’s generic design-one-build-many approach is seen as the ideal means of unlocking Australia’s offshore gas resources.
Construction of Shell’s floating LNG substructure, a world first, has commenced with joint venture partners INPEX and KOGAS at Samsung Heavy Industries’ Geoje shipyard in South Korea. Prelude’s production is due to start in 2017 with 3.6 million metric tonnes of LNG and 1.3 million tonnes of gas condensate a year. The Crux gas condensate field is also poised to be developed as a part of the Prelude project. As previously mentioned, the Marine Supply Base will be integral to the successful maintenance and supply of Shell’s facilities.
In November last year, Santos announced a significant gas discovery at the Crown-1 exploration well 60 km west of the Ichthys field and 20 km east of the Poseidon field. In addition, Santos and GDF Suez plan a floating LNG development for their proposed Bonaparte Gulf ventures, with a final investment decision scheduled for the end of 2014.
Santos and ConocoPhillips have taken steps towards commercialising the Caldita and Barossa fields in the Timor Sea north of the Tiwi Islands, entering into a farm-out agreement with an affiliate of South Korean conglomerate, SK Group. A three-well appraisal program will commence this year.
These are just a few of the offshore projects. The Commonwealth Minister for Resources and Energy recently granted seven new exploration permits for offshore NT and WA that will see an estimated $277m in new investment in offshore areas over the next three years. These include a permit granted to Tangiers Petroleum Limited in the Money Shoal Basin 100 km north of Darwin in the Arafura Sea.
Importantly, the prospect of creating a real commercial domestic market through gas to Gove and potential other smaller domestic interests will spark a renewed interest in oil and gas in the Territory, of that I have no doubt.
Not only is there a massive offshore potential, but the same applies onshore as the search for energy extends from offshore to the bush. By the end of 2011, accelerated exploration programs have led the percentage of onshore and near-shore acreage either granted or under application across the Territory to a level of almost 90%. International exploration companies are investing hundreds of millions of dollars in recognition of the NT’s high prospectivity for shale gas assets, an industry that has dramatically altered the American energy landscape.
Indeed, the unprecedented level of interest we are witnessing in the Territory is, no doubt, the result of the success of the unconventional shale oil and gas industry in America and the belief that proven modern technologies in use in the United States can be replicated in Australia. The potential of multiple shale gas reservoirs has been identified and the declaration of contingent reserves plus major investments planned by international petroleum companies such as Hess, Statoil, Total, Santos and ConocoPhillips have seriously heightened investment interest.
At the 2012 South East Asia Australia Offshore Conference, Martyn Eames, Vice President of the Asia Pacific Division of Santos advised that shale oil and gas could produce a major new source of Australian exports. He noted that the Territory is estimated ‘to have more than 200 trillion cubic feet of shale gas reserves’.
Armour Energy has one of the largest shale gas acreage positions in Australia comprising exclusive rights over approximately 33 million acres in the McArthur, Georgina and South Nicholson Basins, extending from the Northern Territory into Queensland. A resource assessment of its Glyde #1 lateral well in the McArthur Basin confirmed a significant gas discovery, and drilling will take place over the next two years.
In November 2012, Santos announced the execution of a farming agreement with Tamboran Resources covering approximately 25 000 km2.
Permits covering an area of seven million acres in the Beetaloo Basin, 600 km south of Darwin, are currently held by Falcon Oil & Gas Australia Ltd. Falcon’s Chief Executive Officer, Mr Phillip O’Quigley summed it up:
PetroFrontier Corporation was one of the first companies to undertake exploration, acquisition and development of both conventional and unconventional petroleum assets in the Southern Georgina Basin. Areas further south in the Territory are also in play where companies such as Central Petroleum have focused in Central Australia’s oil and gas potential.
The history of the Northern Territory with regard to oil and gas is strong, although you could say it is still in its infancy. Traditionally, all the Territory’s onshore gas production came from the Amadeus Basin, from fields at Mereenie operated by Santos and Palm Valley operated by Magellan.
My Department of Mines and Energy’s NT Geological Survey estimates up to 6 billion barrels of oil remain to be discovered in the Amadeus Basin alone, and the Surprise 1 oil discovery proved that potential early last year.
This gives you an indication of the current scale of oil and gas development in the Territory. Our focus is firmly on achieving the full potential in partnership with leading international companies.
I will now briefly touch on the NT government’s view on the stimulation of horizontal wells or, to use the vernacular, fracking. In 2012, we saw the first two wells horizontally stimulated in the Territory as a part of the PetroFrontier program and, in 2013, we expect there will be more of this exploration technique. I understand this is an essential process if we want to realise the potential benefits that lie beneath the surface of the NT.
However, I am also very mindful of community concerns about real and perceived bad practice. In this regard, the Territory is actively pursuing best practice regulation for the unconventional energy exploration activities as a means of continual improvement to our regulatory procedures.
This government has commissioned a review of the NT’s petroleum regulatory regime in order to provide the industry and our community with surety that we have an appropriate and contemporary legislative regime to assist the development of this untapped resource.
I mentioned before that I gave the keynote address to the Australian American Chamber of Commerce 5th Annual Energy Conference in Houston, Texas. While I was in the United States, I took the opportunity to add value to that trip by spending a day-and-a-half inspecting various operations and sites where unconventional gas was being extracted. These were horizontally fracked wells.
As the responsible minister, I will continue to take the time to explore and understand the new technologies used to extract tight oil and gas. I need to understand the processes and be comfortable with them from an operational and environmental point of view. The time I spent on those gas fields in Texas gave me an insight into how these practices can be successfully employed with minimal impact and risk to the environment. For example, at a site I visited where a horizontal fracked well was being cleaned out prior to production, every vehicle on the gas pad which held any liquids was bunded to capture any spills. It was impressive stuff.
Technologies such as those applied in the drilling of wells and the release of tight gas in the horizontal plain have transformed the gas potential of parts of the United States. That potential lies also within the geological formations of the Territory. This government is not afraid to adopt the use of those technologies whilst bearing in mind the enormous responsibility we have to protect the environment. That is why my Department of Mines and Energy is investigating world’s best practice and regulation so we can lead this country in adopting the very best regime to reduce, by the greatest degree, risk to the environment.
You would be aware that December 2012 marked the 40th anniversary of the formal establishment of Australia-China relations. We have a very active Northern Australia Ministerial Forum working to strengthen our bilateral relationship with China. On 24 November 2012, the Significant Investor Visa pathway commenced to attract prominent business people and investors. This has attracted major interest in Asia.
The Asian century white paper recently launched by Prime Minister Gillard acknowledges that a cornerstone of the growing engagement with Asia is the booming energy resources sector across northern Australia, particularly LNG. It states:
The primary driving force of our expanding economy is our mining and, increasingly, our energy industry. The majority of our land is still underexplored, but we are starting to see on-the-ground exploration activity ramping up on granted tenures. The early stages of shale oil and gas exploration are largely about understanding the geology, and unlocking the secrets to achieving commercial flow rates. If this is successful - and I am confident it will be - then the growth of unconventional activity will be exponential.
It is fair to say there has been a boom in onshore petroleum exploration in the NT recently, which is an important new element of the Territory’s resources industry that can potentially provide alternative, and possibly cheaper, fuel sources for the domestic market and for export. Much of this activity is related to unconventional oil and gas potential. In the past year there have been a number of horizontal wells drilled in shales in the NT.
Another example is Armour Energy’s recent Glyde #1 lateral hole that has discovered significant gas with flows equivalent to around 4 million standard cubic feet of gas per day. Another recent onshore activity in the Territory is the conventional oil play by Central Petroleum at the Surprise well west of Alice Springs in Central Australia.
The NT government is actively promoting the Territory’s oil and gas potential both on and offshore, and we are building productive relationships with the international petroleum industry and key exploration and investment companies. Darwin, now firmly established as a major LNG hub, is already a supply and service centre for much of Australia’s oil and gas exploration and production in our northern waters.
The outlook for the oil and gas sector in the Northern Territory is bright. This government will be working hard to ensure we do what we can to allow this industry to grow for the benefit of all Territorians now and for generations to come. This government has the commitment and resolve to follow this through.
Madam Speaker, I move that the statement be noted.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement because in so many ways he is complementing the work of the previous Labor government, commending us for our leadership and our foresight in building the oil and gas sector in the Northern Territory. When Labor was in power in 2010-11, the sector grew to account for 17.5% of the NT economy, providing the almost 4000 jobs you referred to. Thank you for acknowledging and congratulating that work of Labor.
It was Labor that established the North Australian Centre for Oil and Gas at the Charles Darwin University. Everyone knows that it was Labor that secured the Ichthys project, that all-important INPEX/Total project and all of the associated economic activity we are seeing in the Top End today.
The subsequent growth and emergence of new opportunities in oil and gas are all so very welcome but are, very clearly, the direct result of workforce development strategies, the investment environment, and the regulatory framework put in place by the Henderson Labor government. I am particularly heartened by the offshore gas development, especially in the Bonaparte Basin. The recent drilling activities by MEO Australia and Eni in the Heron South-1 field and the advances toward the production by Santos and ConocoPhillips at the Barossa Caldita sites are of particular interest.
Then there is the exploration being undertaken by Shell, Eni, and other partners in the Evans Shoal field. As the minister pointed out, there is also exploration quite close to Darwin in the Money Shoal Basin by Tangiers Petroleum.
I thank the minister for acknowledging the attraction of this investment and exploration by the Henderson Labor government.
The minister seeks to claim this as the work of his government in the past five months. That is not a credible assertion. However, I genuinely welcome the minister’s recent conversion to supporting our oil and gas industry. I note the term ‘three-hub economy’ is not once mentioned in his statement. I note the minister’s remark:
I point out one massive glaring problem with the minister’s statement. He talked in very glowing terms about the Marine Supply Base and all the wonderful long-term benefits the Marine Supply Base will provide:
He also stated the Marine Supply Base will be integral to Shell’s investment in the construction of the world’s first floating LNG substructure leading to significant LNG and gas condensate production from 2017. He failed to mention it is his government which paid their mates $1m to put the Marine Supply Base under attack in the first progress report issued by the Renewal Management Board. Yes, the Renewal Management Board, the experts from whom they received the advice that guided them in their financial decisions since becoming government, put the Marine Supply Base under attack in their first progress report. They threatened it. The Renewal Management Board’s progress report was scathing of the project, and said:
The minister glowed about the previous government’s projects such as the INPEX Total Ichthys projects, the Marine Supply Base, the Charles Darwin University Oil and Gas Institute, the common user area, then ever so lamely claimed Labor had a lack of policies. The CLP talked about our lack of a gas reservation policy. The Chief Minister has gone on the national stage calling for a domestic gas reservation policy yet, curiously, if the Territory had imposed a domestic gas reservation policy there would be no ConocoPhillips LNG and no INPEX Total Ichthys. There would be no jobs in that sector, and there would be no gas to supply to Gove.
Speaking of gas to Gove, the Chief Minister almost destroyed, through his dithering, the lives and livelihoods of so many Territorians in his ham-fisted negotiations with Rio Tinto. His dithering did nothing more than extend the time taken to resolve the matter. I am so glad it was eventually resolved. However, as I said, he did not need to go to Milan, Paris and London to resolve what was in his in tray in Darwin. He took a trip to Perth and met with the companies. He would have heard directly from the headquarters in Perth what he knew all along: the 10-year supply of gas to Gove was crucial. It is something he eventually got to after flying to Perth, Canberra, Singapore, Milan, Paris, and London when we all knew all along.
Of course, the minister did not really take an interest in the supply of gas to Gove, in keeping a refinery open for some 1600 jobs - 800 direct - or in keeping the Pacific Aluminium refinery open which provides about $500m to the Territory economy. The minister did not show up. He went to Texas, but did not get on a plane and go to Gove. There are two commercial flights per day to Gove. It would not have been too difficult for the minister with this responsibility to get on a plane and fly to Gove.
This was probably best highlighted by his effusive praise of his colleague, the Leader of Government Business, when he left a Cabinet meeting and rushed to a serious accident involving a school bus, indicating he would do exactly the same thing if there was a serious incident in his area of portfolio responsibility. He made that effusive praise at exactly the same time Nhulunbuy was in crisis over the potential closure of a refinery. It beggars belief that the minister did not get on a plane and fly to Gove.
Also, where is the government’s vision for pipelines and delivering gas to consumers? We heard the Chief Minister make a big play about that; he wanted to see a national pipeline network and link up the ability to deliver gas to consumers around our great nation, and said it is a significant area for future infrastructure needs. Where are they on that? What have they achieved on that? Are they proposing taxpayers fund commercial pipelines? Are they proposing Australian governments underwrite these national linked pipelines? These are some really bizarre comments from a conservative party.
National infrastructure for commercial purposes is interesting. You would have thought it contradicts the party’s stance on the mining rental resource tax which had a strong element of funding for infrastructure, yet the conservative parties railed against that. How is the Chief Minister proposing a national series hook-up of pipelines? Is it a levy? Is it a tax? He said it has to happen and it is critical, yet gave no detail on who will fund it or how it will be funded.
What is important - and I know it will be lost in this debate to an extent - is the message this nonsense is sending about the Northern Territory and the ability to do business in the Northern Territory with certainty. This is the crux of it. When asked why INPEX made that critical decision to deliver the nation’s second largest project, the $34bn investment to Darwin instead of Western Australia, Kuroda San told the global media gathered in Darwin it was certainty. The Labor government of the Territory provided an environment of legislative regulatory certainty.
We were not cowboys running around saying whatever wild thought entered our head that provided an environment of uncertainty. That environment is prevailing today under the CLP government. Business has heard the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory say there needs to be a domestic gas reservation policy. Extraordinary!
The major global oil and gas companies are fundamentally and completely opposed to a domestic gas reservation policy. APPEA, the industry organisation, is opposed to a domestic gas reservation policy. Regardless of what individuals think about that, if you send those messages to the industry and global players, as a government and as Chief Minister, you are sending a message of deep uncertainty about their tens of millions of dollars’ worth of investment, mounting up into the billions of dollars’ worth of investment: $277m in investment in exploration, gearing into billions of dollars of investment if these projects fire. However, they will not risk it when you have a cowboy, the member for Blain, uttering absolute nonsense. It is a fact there was no CLP policy when they were negotiating with ConocoPhillips for the LNG for a domestic gas reservation. Unless you are not putting your policies up on the website, you still do not have that policy. You still do not have the policy of a domestic gas reservation. Your Chief Minister is saying you do. That is incredibly dangerous and stupid, and it sends a signal to business that you are putting up the ‘closed for business’ sign.
Labor built a strong foundation, and the speech by the minister today described it. He described the investment in exploration, how critically important the Marine Supply Base is, and the opportunities arising from, for example, the Ichthys project. We heard the Chief Minister talk about the transport opportunities in Question Time today and the jobs and investment that brings. The statement described the Labor foundations and bedrocks, the Charles Darwin University Oil and Gas Institute.
Do not tear down the hard-won work of a Labor Henderson government simply because you are a Chief Minister grappling for excuses for your dithering! Do not jeopardise the Territory’s hard-fought-for, hard-won fundamental growth through oil and gas.
I spend much of my time as Leader of the Opposition reassuring the small, medium and large businesses which are incredibly worried by what they hear in the statements of the Chief Minister. They are very worried. I say, ‘It is early days, he is new, he does not really mean it, he is saying it as a distraction, get on with your business. We are a good environment in which to invest.’ How strange is it when the Labor Leader of the Opposition is spending her time reassuring business that their investment will be safe in the Territory, because the conservative Chief Minister is making them all incredibly nervous with what he says? They are worried.
Yes, I commend the statement, but I will point out the dangers of the public comments of the Chief Minister and how it is threatening our lucrative business. You heard the debate about what they will do for us; it will be a two-tiered economy. What they will do is give our children jobs and opportunities.
Real time, real life, right now, KBR, which is sourcing the workers for the INPEX project, is going around the remote communities looking for employees to train and provide jobs to. They were recently on the Tiwi Islands. I met some young guys over there who are undertaking certificates in construction. This is a real opportunity, not just for someone sitting in the northern suburbs of Darwin, but for people from all over the Territory.
I heard the member for Barkly talk about fly-in fly-out. Why cannot anyone from anywhere in the Territory become a fly-in fly-out worker from that Darwin camp if they so choose? It is good money. World-class training and world-class jobs are available in the Territory in construction to work on skills that can be achieved. I have seen Macmahon train young Indigenous Territorians and put them on the site at Blaydin Point. Macmahon is sourcing the same skill sets and same local workers for the contract they picked up at the Marine Supply Base. This is real, this is today, and this is genuine. This is the work Labor has brought to the Territory. Yet, the Chief Minister threatens further growth and developments through his foolish statements.
Yes, ConocoPhillips has a second train that can be developed and INPEX has further trains that can go to production, be constructed and developed. This is just the beginning.
Madam Speaker, the Asian century is here. We have the energy requirements our Asian neighbours need. We have opened up the Territory for business. We have put the legislative, regulatory and environmental frameworks in place. We have ensured the approvals sit there for ConocoPhillips and INPEX for further trains at their facilities. Do not stuff it up! So far, Chief Minister, you are doing your damnedest.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, this very important statement from the Minister for Mines and Energy is important because, as the minister said, the sector accounts for about 17.5% of the Northern Territory economy, the biggest contributor by far.
I noticed in reading this document and listening to the minister there are some important areas which were not covered. They are the areas I will raise tonight.
No doubt, we have a significant expansion in gas and oil exploration offshore in the Top End of Australia, and in Central Australia. Various techniques to bring that oil and gas into production, such as fracking - that is an area many people have an interest in, especially when you see some of the videos from the United States and hear concerns people have in other parts of Australia.
The minister has explained to me before that the system used in the Northern Territory is different. But the government will need to do more work to convince people that is the case. There was an Indigenous leader on ABC radio this morning saying he would not support fracking. If the government wishes to promote this as a means of expanding the oil and gas industry - especially the gas industry in the Northern Territory - then it needs to sell and explain to people exactly what this will mean, and show people that the process which will be used will not affect the environment. If the government will promote this as a means of expanding gas production in the Northern Territory, it needs to sell its case to the public. It has not done enough work in that area, and that would be beneficial for those who both oppose and support it.
With the expansion of oil and gas exploration in the north, where will that gas come onshore? There is talk about extra trains by ConocoPhillips and INPEX. If you consider that Darwin Harbour is pretty well at its limit for any more LNG development, it would have been good to see what the vision is for further expansion onshore of facilities that support LNG and other gas production, and also for industries that might want to use that gas for their particular purposes.
For a long time we have heard about developing Glyde Point. It was a possible area to be developed in the CLP government’s time. When the Labor Party was in government, it was removed from those maps which showed the area as a future industrial area. Now, I believe it is proposed, once again, by the CLP government, that Glyde Point be an area for future heavy industry, especially in relation to gas. There is no mention of that in this statement. I would have thought it would have been appropriate when issuing a statement on oil and gas to deal with what areas the Northern Territory government sees as suitable for future expansion onshore for the development of oil and gas. That is something lacking in this document.
I also believe we cannot ignore - whether we like it or not - the relationship between Australia and Timor-Leste in sharing this resource, because we are at times working in areas where we have joint exploration fields which have a bearing on our relationship with Timor-Leste. It would be good to hear from this government what its views are on the sharing of that resource. I have said before, the technical issues in relation to whether you can take LNG across the trench have been used as the reasons why a pipeline cannot be taken to Timor-Leste.
The reality is we talk about huge amounts of gas and oil being developed, and on our doorstep is the poorest country in the world. We have a responsibility to ensure the benefits of gas and oil in this region are shared by our neighbour which, obviously, has a much greater need for this type of development than we do. That is not to say it is not important for our Territory and our country. However, I do not believe you can do that in isolation by shutting your eyes to the fact that Timor-Leste is an extremely poor country which has very high unemployment. From a strategic point of view, we want a peaceful nation on our doorstep, one that is not liable to have disruptions because of high unemployment and uncertainty for many young people as to what their future is. We know the history of Timor-Leste and that there have been problems before. We should be doing our best to ensure when we develop our oil and gas we do not leave Timor-Leste out of the debate. I would like to hear from the government how it sees the relationship between our two countries in the development of oil and gas in the region.
There was talk about energy security and the pipeline. The Chief Minister’s idea of having some type of gas pipeline grid in Australia is one of merit if we consider the amount of gas which has been produced. If we can use a reliable source of gas across Australia that will benefit this part of the world and develop more industries.
One thing which might be of interest is I remember when the development of those units near Darwin High School - the next stage is being built now - I am trying to remember the name ...
Mr Vatskalis: Hastings.
Mr WOOD: Hastings on Mindil. I took a tour of the building with the owners and there was talk about bringing gas there. The Territory does not have a domestic supply of gas for households and industry. Some people are supplied with gas, whether it is bottled or there are some limited pipelines. With the price of power increasing there is an opportunity to look at whether we could supply gas to individual households. I have an electric stove but am out in the sticks so that may not be possible, but there must be an opportunity to look at whether it is feasible to put a domestic supply into the suburbs of Darwin. It is done in most other states. My mother lives in Melbourne and she has had a gas stove for most of her life. The idea of a reticulated gas supply within a city is not new.
With all this gas around, it would be interesting to know whether there is a possibility to expand gas supply in Darwin. I do not have the wherewithal to produce a cost-benefit analysis to see if it could reduce the cost of living because people could cook with something cheaper than electricity. Perhaps the government could give it some consideration and see whether there are opportunities for that to occur, as well as in the other centres such as Alice Springs. The gas pipeline goes past Katherine and Tennant Creek. Look into the opportunities for domestic use of gas wherever it goes.
There was mention of fly-in fly-out. There has been much discussion on social media and through the general media about the benefits of fly-in fly-out. It is worth debate and is not in this statement. I agree with the Opposition Leader. I have previously raised that I have concerns we will get a very rich section of the Northern Territory from this great boom in our economy through mining and oil and gas, that there will be a group of people who do not benefit from it and we will have the haves and the have-nots. As a new government - I raised this with the previous government - we have to somehow give those people who live in remote communities, who do not have proper jobs, the opportunity to be part of the economic boom which will come from the expansion of oil and gas.
As the Leader of the Opposition said, and I have said before, if we can fly people from interstate to work in the Northern Territory, we can fly people from remote communities. I have raised this issue in relation to the abattoir at Livingstone. For instance, why could there not be a hostel run by Aboriginal Hostels where people could come in for two weeks and go back to their community for a week so they do not lose contact with their community but are able to work on these sites? Obviously, they would need training. You will not be able to work on some of these sites without having the necessary skills. You could use the Larrakia Training Centre for bringing people in and upskilling them so they can become part of this new development and enjoy real wages. That is a goal we need to look at.
One of the big dangers we have in our society today is we will end up having haves and have-nots. If you want to ensure social disharmony in your society that is when it occurs. That is the same argument I use for Timor-Leste. People need good jobs. As much as we should be helping Timor-Leste, we need to be helping our own people in remote communities to improve their standard of living.
I am a great believer in the concept that welfare should not be available easily in remote communities and we should have people working. However, here is an opportunity for people to get real jobs in an expanding economy. It will not happen if welfare is still available so easily for people.
The minister talked about training, which is interesting. I must be getting old, my grandson - goodness me - had his 17th birthday. That makes me feel old. He is in his last year at St John’s. He has been given an apprenticeship through JKC. He will be doing some of that work through Charles Darwin University - I presume at the Oil and Gas centre at Charles Darwin University. He is as pleased as punch. I told him he might have to spend much more time sitting at a desk studying maths and English rather than operating a tablet or a smartphone, or whatever they do when they are looking down all the time. There you are, there is a local lad. We have a big company which has come to Darwin and here is an opportunity for him to really set his future in a great direction because he now has the opportunity to work for that company and gain skills that he might have been struggling to get a few years ago. I am hoping it will work out. He will have to make a big effort because it is not easy. The arrival of oil and gas into Darwin has created those opportunities.
The other area I should raise, I saw today. We get the little headlines sent around in relation to what has been in the newspaper. I did not know this, but the headline was ‘Territory call to reform land rights mining veto’. I do not know much about this, but I thought it was at least worth raising. This was in The Australian today:
It went on to talk about Central Land Council’s David Ross and Robert Graham disagreeing with the figures. It said the Department of Mines and Energy made these comments in a submission to a Productivity Commission inquiry. It also raised some issues that the Central Land Council has raised with concerns about this concept of a reform on the land rights mining veto. It quotes former NLC director, Norman Fry, who said the government’s recommendations did not go far enough.
That was a pretty important statement. I do not know enough about this move by the government to pass an opinion, but I would have thought, as this was put forward by the NT Department of Mines and Energy in a submission to a Productivity Commission inquiry, there would have been some mention of this in this statement.
Yes, there is no doubt that mining on Aboriginal land can bring benefits, but it has to be done pretty carefully. I will give you an example. My wife’s country is at the mouth of the Daly River. The Peron Islands are just across the way and they love the Peron Islands. Once upon a time the islands used to be a conservation reserve, but they are part of the Wagait Aboriginal Land Trust. She did not realise someone had put an exploration request to drill on the coast of the Peron Islands.
My wife has not done a university degree in science, especially gas exploration, but the first thing she said was, ‘I am very concerned they will drill holes in the mud around the islands there because there is a lot of coral and lots of fish, etcetera’. I understand where she is coming from. She sees this as a possible threat to the land and sea she knows. She has no more information. In fact, she did not know this application had gone in. The land council was a little slack in telling them, after the event, this application had gone in.
There is already an application for oil and gas exploration on the whole of Wagait reserve. It was in the paper last Friday, or the Friday before. I was alerted to that. That is not to say it cannot be done, but one of the reasons for the veto is to recognise the fact that Aboriginal people who have lived on the land for a long time are worried about what side effects mining can have on their land. It certainly can bring benefits to these communities, but I am also aware it can be a downside in many cases.
Money is not everything in this world. Sometimes we can see the benefits of companies bringing wealth to these communities. They can get off welfare, all the joys of being rich can be put to these people, but in the end it is not everything. I am a little concerned about this statement ...
Mr VATSKALIS: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I move an extension of time for the member for Nelson to finish his remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Casuarina.
It worries me. It needs some good, rounded debate because I can see the two sides. For instance, they were looking at drilling off Groote Eylandt for manganese. My understanding is Groote Eylandt traditional owners do not want that. Technically, under this change, I imagine no matter what they thought, it would still happen.
The minister could have developed more on this issue in his statement. It is a very important issue. I imagine, even amongst Aboriginal people, there is for and against it. I only saw the article this morning. Perhaps when the minister sums up on this issue he can explain where this has come from and what the government’s plans are on reform to the land rights mining veto. That is not in the paper. It is a very important issue because there are good and bad sides to the debate. We need to go through that debate very carefully. We should ensure we involve those people who will be affected so we get an understanding of what they think.
I thank the minister for the statement. There is no doubt oil and gas can bring enormous benefits to the Territory. We always have to balance that.
There can be some downsides to fly-in fly-out, as we know. You only have to look at recent documentaries on the effect fly-in fly-out sometimes has on families. The option of having fly-in fly-out for some of our more remote communities can give them the opportunity to enjoy some of the benefits the minister has outlined. The idea of having a gas pipeline criss-crossing the continent is good. There is also the ability to have domestic gas.
Where will all the infrastructure on land be sited? That is a big question. It is not cheap to develop Glyde Point. It has always been a stumbling block for any government because of the amount of infrastructure required to do it. Where will onshore facilities go?
We also should not leave out the question, ‘What will our relationship be with Timor-Leste in the sharing of some of this resource?’ As I said, it is the poorest country in the world. We cannot always look inward. Sometimes we have to look outwards to our neighbours. Sharing those resources in a way which will help that country economically and socially is something we cannot ignore.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement and look forward to his reply.
Mr MILLS (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the statement and make some comments related to the recent - in fact, it was today - comments which have been made by the Australian Chamber of Commerce’s Peter Anderson regarding the two-speed economy. The reason I make comment on this is because of the oil and gas industry, the economic drivers this provides for the Northern Territory economy, and how we, as a government, should respond. I also intend to address some of the matters raised by the previous speaker, the member for Nelson, regarding a domestic gas supply and how we manage to deal with the resource we have, the lack of supply, and how we can increase domestic demand through increased supply. I will then link this into the recent gas to Gove exercise, what has been the outcome, and where we are with that.
With regard to the impact of the mining sector and, in particular, oil and gas in the Northern Territory, it is noted these are significant drivers to the Territory economy. As we noted in the lead-up to the last election, there was a preoccupation with a single big project and all the good headlines that can come from having a big project. However, big projects have a life of their own. You can stand and point at them, wearing a hard hat perhaps, and have your photograph taken, and talk about all the positive things that will flow from this, but it requires a planning response as well.
There are two important matters. One is we need to remain vigilant with the release of land so there is plenty of space for people to live. With increased activity, you need to increase the space for people, at a whole range of incomes, to live. That was observed, noted and responded to in opposition. We now have the opportunity to implement programs through the Planning Commission. Through a more decisive response to the release of land there are places for people to live because that allows us to capitalise on the opportunity. Affordable housing is directly linked to the opportunities that come from the oil and gas industry.
Second, it relates to energy security and the cost of living. One of the key concerns I and my government had in dealing with the issue of securing a supply of gas for Gove was to ensure we had a supply of gas to enable the decision to release existing known supply, and risk exposure in future.
We are in this situation because there was domestic or onshore demand for gas through Rio Tinto’s ultimatum. That provides the opportunity, given there is demand, for supply to be incentivised. In that context, it was very important to keep the discussion going, and keep alive the opportunity now presented with the domestic demand for gas through the securing of supplies to keep the refinery going and, at the same time, ensure we keep up domestic exploration and production.
That is where the primary focus was in the first instance; to ensure that in all the activity with Santos, GDF Suez, the onshore opportunity with Eni, and a number of others that were mentioned in the minister’s statement, were given the incentive to maintain their efforts. That was the first important part of it. Of itself, that was insufficient to provide the security which is required, not just for the Northern Territory, but for the opportunity that is presented by energy issues, particularly to the east, where there are known reserves not brought to the surface, or some conjecture over whether coal seam gas could be utilised for generating domestic use on the eastern seaboard.
To take it to the next step and have a pipeline constructed between Tennant Creek and Mount Isa increases the domestic demand. If we have seen domestic demand result in increased exploration and potential production, how much more would be the case if we took it to the next step and built a 700 km pipeline between Tennant Creek and Mount Isa, which would open up a much bigger domestic demand potential?
Once you have demand, then supply comes in to match that demand. That is the purpose of the two aspects of the strategy employed by the Country Liberals government, guided by the need to manage risk and use this opportunity to advantage the Northern Territory by increasing our capacity to service an increased domestic supply of gas.
This leads to the member for Nelson’s questions regarding the use of gas in the household. The issue is, basically, supply and demand. If we increase the supply of gas it makes it more possible for alternate markets to be sourced. At this point, there is not the known gas available. All that is brought to the surface is already secured. Rather than note there was opportunity to reserve some of that for future purpose; that has not been the case.
The best mechanism would be to increase domestic demand which would increase supply. As we have seen in the US, when you have increased supply you put downward pressure on demand. That is the rationale. The effect of that, and a very important consideration, is the economic benefits it can potentially bring to remote communities. Many of the smaller reserves that are known or prospective are in remote places. They may not be of a quantity significant enough to warrant bringing to the surface with an international market in mind, but if there are domestic options it provides the capacity for an explorer to consider bringing to the surface smaller reserves. There are smaller reserves and many of those are not far from a number of our remote communities.
Therein is the other effect of going down this path; you can increase economic activity in places remote from Darwin. That is something we want to achieve and if a pipeline - important infrastructure - is constructed across the Barkly, for example, it brings into play known reserves in that area which are not very difficult to bring into a pipeline. It is exactly what has happened in the US.
I commend the minister for having a very close look at lessons learnt and opportunities presented through the US experience, particularly in Dakota. Be prepared to learn from those lessons, ensure we recognise this opportunity and manage it well. The opportunity is there with reserves, and is heightened when you have increased access to market through a pipeline. That is what has happened in the US and what should happen here.
A pipeline from Katherine to Gove presents the same opportunity. There are already explorers in and around that area who now see that if a pipeline is constructed they could bring gas to surface into that pipeline and be shareholders beneficiaries, or partners in this project. That is exactly what we predicted would happen, and what is happening. There will be reports on that in due time.
These are important steps in dealing with a real issue presented to the new Territory government. We have put the Territory in a much stronger position as a result of due diligence by doing a thorough assessment of what is available, what is known, what is invested in exploration, what level of skin in the game - for another way of saying it for those who are exploring such as Santos - and then taking it to the next stage to increase domestic demand. It means we will increase supply and, to broaden it out into a wider context, it gives us increased opportunity.
This matter of the expanded pipeline has been put on the COAG agenda and a report is being prepared. We are in regular contact with the Australian Pipeline Industry Association which is preparing and supporting work on the economics of such a proposition. That is progressing well, as I mentioned at the beginning, with Peter Anderson, the Chief Executive of the Australian Chamber of Commerce. On their agenda, going into the next federal election, is infrastructure. This will be very important infrastructure. I commend Julia Ross and Greg Bicknell, both from the Chamber of Commerce, for their consideration of these important projects for the Northern Territory, and their acceptance to provide further lobbying through whatever channels and means we have available to us to improve this type of infrastructure. With the potential of gas, you have to have access to market and you need that infrastructure.
If we continue down this path, as I and this government are resolved to do, we can ensure the benefits flow - not to create a two-speed economy, because this provides the opportunity for benefit to remote communities. That is something that is of particular interest to this Country Liberals government.
Mr Deputy Speaker, with that said, I thank the honourable member for his statement. We are headed for exciting days. We are not talking about great opportunity and big projects and how exciting all this is. For anyone who is listening to this, they would see we are considering the opportunity and planning well for it: understanding risks that may be there, managing that risk well, and coming up with strategies and plans that will advantage the Territory and ensure we strengthen the Territory economy - not accentuate the two-speed economy but to ensure we respond with affordable housing when it is in urban settings, and to increase infrastructure in remote places so remote communities can be involved in real jobs around exploration and production of gas.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister very much for bringing this statement to the House. It is a very important statement. I see his interest in gas and oil development in the Territory. I also thank him for putting on the record the achievements of the Labor government for the past 10 years because it was that Labor government that put the Territory on the map and made it a destination for mining exploration, and exploration for oil and gas. I also thank him very much for using our slogan ‘The Territory is open for business’. That is what we said for 10 years, and still say.
Of course, it was the Labor government that found the situation of seven mines about to close, and hundreds and hundreds of mining exploration applications sitting on desks because the ministers from the previous government wanted to play games with the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act and try to stop any exploration, trying to blame the Indigenous people for stopping the economic development of the Territory.
It was the Labor government that went Australia-wide and overseas to promote the Territory. It was the Labor government which put in place a policy about attracting investment from China, Korea, and Japan. It was the Labor government which visited China twice a year and presented a number of projects to the Chinese - in their own language, and this is the booklet I took with me and presented to the Chinese - promoting different projects in the Territory, from uranium to oil and gas. It was our Labor government that made it even easier for the Chinese by developing a booklet in Mandarin on how to do business in Australia with the assistance of the Chinese Embassy in Canberra.
I thank the minister very much for using those two booklets on his recent trip to China. The fact that they were drafted by a previous government does not make these booklets bad; it makes them a very useful tool. I am pretty sure the department will work to improve those booklets and make them more relevant and more contemporary so that Labor government initiative will continue.
It was also the Labor government that thought first about the oil and gas supply established in Darwin to supply the region. It was unfortunate it was the CLP government’s renewal board that put the brakes on that supply base by considering it risky, expensive and not a very good idea, and is currently reviewing it. I was very surprised the minister did not know. His ministerial office obviously did not advise him of this situation.
It is a very important statement because oil and gas in the Territory will have a significant impact on the society and economy of the Territory. We say mining contributes about 20% of the gross state product and employs 4000 people. If what we believe will happen with oil and gas does happen, onshore and offshore, mining and oil and gas may contribute to even more of our gross state product and employ many more people in the Territory.
Let us look at the oil and gas situation. Oil and gas can be divided into two areas. Some is discovered and exploited from offshore gas fields such as Ichthys, Bayu-Undan, and Greater Sunrise, and some may develop onshore.
We have often heard about the gas reservation policy. Governments put in place a policy whereby if a company discovers gas, so much of this gas has to be sold onshore in that state for use in industry. That is what Western Australia did when they first discovered gas in the 1970s and 1980s. The then government created a gas reservation policy to retain that gas in Western Australia, not because they could not sell it overseas - they could - but the price of gas at the time was very depressed because oil and coal was much cheaper. At the same time, Western Australia wanted to develop the offshore gas industry and some industry which was energy hungry in Western Australia; for example, an aluminium factory in the south of Perth. They also wanted to bring gas into big cities such as Perth.
The difference between Western Australia and the Territory is that Western Australia has a large land mass but it also has a significant population, mainly in the south of the state. It also has difficulties of cold weather. The Northern Territory has a significant land mass and a very small population, and our weather is totally different from Western Australia’s, apart from Central Australia.
We talk about the household use of gas, but the reality of the Northern Territory is the only way to use gas is for cooking. With the Renewable Energy Initiative, most of our hot water systems are powered by the sun. Also, there is not cold weather so people do not require gas for heating. Most of Perth’s hot water, cooking and heating is done with natural gas - $1.5m. The big difference between Western Australia and the Northern Territory is that while Western Australia has massive industries like the aluminium industry and fertiliser, the Northern Territory does not. If you try to sell gas in the Northern Territory you will not have the industry to take it, while in Western Australia they require more and more gas for their local industry.
The other issue with the gas reservation policy is that most of the gas that comes to the Territory does not come from Territory waters. It comes from Western Australian waters, Commonwealth-Territory managed waters, or Commonwealth waters.
A gas reservation policy would not be successful for the simple reason other states might challenge our right to put a reservation on their gas. When a company discovers gas and brings it onshore to convert to LNG, the company does not own the resource, it only utilises it. It is the state that owns the resource. The gas that comes to the Northern Territory from Ichthys, Bayu-Undan or Blacktip is owned by Western Australia and it only comes here to be processed. It would be very interesting to find out how the Northern Territory can legally impose a gas reservation policy on gas that comes from other states.
That could be a different story, of course, if the Northern Territory government or any government put a gas reservation policy on gas produced onshore. That gas would clearly be owned by the Northern Territory and then the government can implement a policy. But would it be wise to implement a policy like this on a gas development in the Northern Territory? The Northern Territory onshore gas industry is still in the exploration stage; we do not have a well producing yet apart from Mereenie gas field. It would be very difficult to attract companies here if they have to face a gas reservation policy.
At the moment, the price of gas sold overseas is much higher than the companies in Australia are prepared to pay. Many companies in Australia demand gas for domestic use, but the reality is many companies like INPEX, when they wanted to sell their resource in the past and were looking for buyers, the price they took from Japan, China, or America was significantly higher than the Australian industry was prepared to pay for that gas. It is a reasonable sense of free market economy. You cannot ask somebody to sell you a resource for which they can get more money somewhere else because, if we do that for oil and gas, what about extending it to other industries?
Another issue I raise is we are on the verge - I agree with the minister - of significant discoveries. The indication we get from Armour Energy’s exploration in the McArthur Basin – from one well only – is they are talking about 130.7 BCF. Hess and Falcon, exploring in Beetaloo Basin, are not talking about one, two or three BCF, like Bayu-Undan, they are not talking about seven TCF, like Ichthys, they are talking about 162 TCF …
Mr Westra van Holthe: I know Kon, I mentioned that in my speech.
Mr VATSKALIS: Of course, you know that because the department provided you this information, the same way it was provided it to us.
We are on the verge of significant discoveries in the Territory. But the discoveries onshore come from other sources as well. Recently, in South Australia, near Coober Pedy, a company made a significant discovery of gas similar to the one in Beetaloo Basin. There would be a glut of gas in Australia, the same way there was a glut of gas in the United States.
I recall very well when Bayu-Undan was arranging the sale of the LNG from Darwin to different companies around the world, the price of gas was significantly high because there was significant demand, especially from California in the United States, which had recently changed their legislation to either renewable energy or clean energy. LNG was seen as very clean fuel to fuel their power stations. Since then, there have been such significant discoveries of shale oil and gas in the United States the price of gas in the United States has decreased and, from a nett importer of gas now the United States has become an exporter of gas. Recently, we heard news that BP and other companies were selling LNG from shale gas from America to the national markets and, in this way, supressing the international market of gas.
The other issue I point out is that gas to Gove became very contemporary and hit the headlines recently, but there are some issues about gas to Gove that arose in 2003-04. That was when Woodside was the owner of Blacktip. There were negotiations with Alcan to sell gas so Alcan would convert the refinery in Gove to gas. At the time, I was advised by Woodside that the price Alcan was prepared to pay for the Blacktip gas was so low that Woodside walked away from the negotiation table and finally sold their resource to Eni, which then successfully sold it to Power and Water.
There was other misinformation about the gas to Gove. When the Chief Minister was panicking about comments made around the Territory and Australia about him dithering to make a decision about providing gas to Gove, he tried to blame the Labor government and the then Chief Minister, Paul Henderson; he said he did not make a decision about providing gas to Gove. He gave publicity to part of a letter the then Chief Minister, Paul Henderson sent to Sandeep Biswas, the CEO of Pacific Aluminium, saying the Labor government was prepared to give only four years of gas to Gove. This is not true. What the Chief Minister said in his letter - I seek leave to table that letter.
Leave granted.
Mr VATSKALIS: It said the government at the time was prepared to give four years of gas to Gove from Power and Water gas. It also advised there was about three years’ supply from the Mereenie fields to complement that gas. In addition, it was prepared to provide supply for 10 years if, at the time, Pacific Aluminium had met some conditions outlined in relation to the gas; for example, that Pacific Aluminium had secured heads of agreement with a gas supplier to deliver an agreed volume, and the heads of agreement was matched by a heads of agreement with the Northern Territory which would allow any additional Power and Water Corporation gas to be sold back at no additional cost to ensure adequate gas for the Power and Water Corporation.
Paul Henderson, the then Chief Minister, said they could have the four years they were asking for, and was prepared to give up to 10 years of gas supply subject to having an agreement with a gas supplier to acquire gas and return this gas to the Northern Territory government for Power and Water to continue power generation.
I heard the Chief Minister’s idea of a national grid to provide gas around Australia. I agree with him; Australia needs a national grid. I find it crazy having significant supplies of gas in Western Australia, near Moomba by Santos, and isolated supplies in the Northern Territory, but nothing to take this gas from one corner of the continent to the other. We know the gas supply from Moomba will decline soon and there will be requirements for new gas supplies to be discovered to supply gas to the eastern seaboard. The best way to do that is create a grid by connecting the existing pipeline, which starts in Alice Springs and finishes in Darwin, to Moomba. The distance between Moomba and Alice Springs is between 450 km and 500 km.
In contrast, his idea of bringing a pipeline from Mount Isa has some significant difficulties. It is a repeat of the big extension corridor the CLP was proposing to bring power from Queensland in 2005. Let us look at the pipeline from Mount Isa to Tennant Creek - distance about 1000 km. My information is the gas pipeline that brings gas to Mount Isa is very small and will need a significant upgrade to bring gas to Mount Isa and extend it to the Northern Territory. Where is the gas going? Is it going from Queensland to the Territory or from the Territory to Queensland? If it is going from the Territory to Queensland, what for? Will it be used for generating power? Currently, Queensland generates significant power using coal, which can be much cheaper than power generated by gas. There are questions to be addressed. What would be the cost to build this pipeline? How long will it take? What will be the implications of native title in Queensland and the Northern Territory?
It will not happen tomorrow and will not be cheap. It will be much cheaper to join a pipeline from the Northern Territory to the network in Moomba which is spread out to South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales, and Queensland, rather than bring a pipeline from Mount Isa. Let us not forget the Alice Springs to Darwin pipeline is in a cleared corridor 100 m wide. There is no native title or Indigenous interest; that was done 20 years ago. If you want a bigger pipeline or more pipelines there it would be very easy to do.
I am very pleased the minister brought this statement to the House not only because it complements the achievements of a previous Labor government, but because gas development is significant, not only for the party in government in the Northern Territory but for the whole Northern Territory.
That is the reason I have accepted an invitation to attend an oil and gas conference in Sydney in March to promote the Northern Territory as the place to do business if you are interested in oil and gas. At that conference, first of all, I will advise our party has no intention of introducing a gas reservation policy. Most importantly, I will ask Woodside to bring gas from the Browse Basin to the Northern Territory utilising the pipeline that INPEX will be putting in place. Everybody in Western Australia knows the proposal by Colin Barnett to develop a gas hub in the Kimberleys will not happen; it will not work for many reasons, not only through the resistance by the Green movement, but also through opposition by Indigenous interests in the area.
The gas field that Woodside has in the Browse Basin is about 300 km from Ichthys. It would be much cheaper to bring a pipeline to Ichthys and join with the INPEX pipeline, rather than trying to bring that pipeline to Karratha or establish an LNG floating platform. One thing that INPEX and ConocoPhillips said about the Northern Territory is they had certainty in the Northern Territory.
I am prepared to acknowledge that the CLP, in 1999-2000, did the work to bring ConocoPhillips to Darwin. Paul Henderson and Clare Martin did exactly the same work to bring INPEX here with great success. As I said before, oil and gas is very important for the development of the Territory and the development of employment in the Territory.
I share the same concerns as the member for Nelson about the news today in The Australian, ‘Territory call to reform land rights mining veto’. The submission by the Department of Mines and Energy to the commission for review of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act is to remove the right of veto from Indigenous people. I am really concerned because, if this is the case, probably Koongarra in Kakadu would be mined for uranium. If people do not have the right to veto development in other areas that should not be touched, then these things will happen.
I agree with the Central Land Council Director, David Ross, who said that some of the delays ...
Ms FYLES: Madam Speaker, I move the member for Casuarina be given an extension of time.
Mr GILES: Speaking to the point of order, I am wondering what standing order number that is?
Ms FYLES: It is 77.
Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated, member for Braitling.
Motion agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS: We know very well that some companies put in an application for exploration and go out to the market to raise some of these funds. That might take time - 10 months, two years, or three years. It is unfair to blame Indigenous people for delaying the project when it is the action of the exploration company that creates the delays.
I am really concerned about calling for removing the right of veto and wonder if the Indigenous members opposite were consulted before this proposal was put in the submission by the department. I am pretty sure they were not consulted because, if they were, they would voice their strong opposition to this proposal. I urge the government to consult with Indigenous people of the Territory and, most of all, with the four Indigenous members sitting opposite, on whether they agree to the removal of the right of veto by Indigenous people to exploration and mining in their areas.
I am familiar with Indigenous people really wanting what we take for granted in other places in Australia. They want the jobs, the cars, the good houses, and a secure future for them and their children.
Yes, member for Nelson, there are companies that already fly-in fly-out people from Indigenous communities to mine sites. Newman is one that flies people from Yuendumu to their site in Tanami, and flies them back, or busses people in and out. That is the reason about 14% of their employees are Indigenous people from the area.
The oil and gas developments onshore in the Territory provide unique opportunities for Indigenous people to be employed near their communities. Hess and Falcon are doing exploration in the Beetaloo Basin in the middle of the Northern Territory, Armour Energy is in the McArthur Basin, very near Borroloola, and other areas near Alice Springs and Tennant Creek are the places where jobs are not as available. However, these are the places where Indigenous people can work. They can go there in the morning and be at home in the afternoon like every other Territorian and Australian.
It is a good statement because it highlights the potential of the Territory. I say again, this is not about Labor or Country Liberal Party achievements, this should be about Territory achievements. I concur with the minister; I have no problem with him travelling to the other side of the world to promote the Territory as a place to do business for oil and gas. I have no problem with him using material which was developed during our time in government. I urge you to develop that material.
Madam Speaker, when the time comes I might have to use that material when I go on a trip to promote mining because, despite what people opposite say, I have no intention of leaving Casuarina. I do not think many of you would like another 70% result in another seat. I will be around for a while and will be advocating for mining, and oil and gas in the Territory during my time in parliament.
Mr GILES (Transport): Madam Speaker, I really look forward to standing on the Casuarina booth in a short period of time after the current member makes his decision about what he will do. He is in the departure lounge looking at that chair over there.
I thank the minister for bringing this statement on; it is a very important statement. It is very encouraging to see the minister being so proactive in the area of oil and gas. People around Australia and the world breathed a sigh of relief when the Country Liberals took government in late August last year because they now know the Territory is open for business. They know we have a proactive government which wants business.
You simply have to look over the last 11 years and see how many new mines started: one, according to the member for Katherine, the Minister for Mines and Energy. We want to have a productive Territory. We do not want to be economic vandals like the previous Labor government. We want to be a government that balances the importance of our natural beauty - that being the environment - and the development of industry around the oil and gas sectors in the creation of energy.
As a member from Central Australia, I look forward to the opportunities in Central Australia. I know our reserves there are quite substantial. All I ask of the minister is please do not let us be, for want of a better term, somewhat of a pit. I would like to see upstream and downstream value-adding where we can accommodate the best opportunities, promote the growth of the economy, and build jobs.
I know of a few opportunities coming up in the near future. I have been actively promoting the opportunities around processing some of those materials in Central Australia, rather than being what people refer to as the quarry. The Northern Territory, where necessary, fulfils a quarry arrangement but where the opportunities are there we have to add value upstream and downstream. I will be advocating for that. I want as many jobs created in Alice Springs and Central Australia as possible. That is my vested interest as a local member from Alice Springs. The member for Katherine, the Minister for Mines and Energy, knows that. He will be hearing it the same way other members hear different things from time to time ...
Mr Westra van Holthe: It is about building the economy.
Mr GILES: It is about building the economy and creating jobs. I will not add any more, member for Katherine. Congratulations on your statement. I look forward to more growth in business and economic development in the Northern Territory, particularly round the oil and gas sector. Let us bring processing facilities into Central Australia.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I thank all the members who have contributed to this statement. I thank them for their feedback and what they have said - some constructive and some non-constructive.
The members for Nelson and Casuarina raised an issue which I will deal with up-front: a report in The Australian which said the Northern Territory government is considering opposing the veto rights of Aboriginal people on their land. Assertions in that regard are absolutely false. I, our party, and this government respect the right of Aboriginal people to veto mining on their land. That right to veto exists under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act and it is beyond the sphere of influence of the Northern Territory government to change that.
To put a little context around those assertions which were made in the media, Part IV of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act is in the process of a review by Justice Mansfield. As a part of that review of Part IV, there was a call sent out to the Northern Territory government to provide its points of view of the non-financial impediments to mining and exploration in the Northern Territory.
The document produced by the Northern Territory stated as a matter of fact that, indeed, Aboriginal people have the right to veto mining on Aboriginal land. There was no suggestion whatsoever in the submissions the Northern Territory made that suggest we are, in any way, against the rights of Aboriginal people to veto mining. I can safely put that one to bed for the benefit of the members for Nelson and Casuarina, and for other interested parties.
I notice there has been some commentary on that issue by the Central Land Council, and the Australian Wilderness Society issued a media release this afternoon. They are basing their media release clearly on an article that was in The Australian today which made no direct quotes or reference to members of the Northern Territory government. In fact, I was not contacted by The Australian for any comment on this at all.
With that issue put to bed, I will touch on a few of the other issues raised. I noted the Opposition Leader - the one who would have tried to negotiate gas to Gove by sitting on a telephone in her office - gave her usual standard of commentary this afternoon. I want to go to one particular point around INPEX.
The former Chief Minister, Paul Henderson - and, by default, his lackey as a result of the deal done by the member for Nelson during the last term of government, that being the current Leader of the Opposition - love to take wonderful credit for INPEX coming to Darwin. What we really need to remember is all the work that was done in securing INPEX was largely done by the former, former Chief Minister, Clare Martin, ably supported by Paul Tyrell.
It is always very convenient for those opposite to regale themselves with the fanfare and adorn themselves with the jewels of the INPEX decision, but the Opposition Leader needs to remember, as do all those opposite, that the work was not done by Paul Henderson, but by Clare Martin. After all the hard work Clare Martin put in, she was the one summarily executed by Paul Henderson and company in those heady days of the Labor government. That is all I want to touch on with that.
The member for Casuarina also touched on a few issues and I refer specifically to one. The speech, which I largely wrote and read time and time again before it was delivered here this afternoon, made no mention at all of a gas reservation policy. The member for Casuarina is talking down the Territory. I have heard members opposite do it many times. By mentioning the spectre of a gas reservation policy he is trying to send fears and chills down the spines of potential investors and companies looking to set up in the Northern Territory.
I had not mentioned once during my speech - and I do not think anybody on this side of the House this afternoon has mentioned - a gas reservation policy. The member for Casuarina is not only scaremongering, he is completely irresponsible in the way he delivers these messages to the parliament and the Northern Territory. The former Labor government is famous for introducing the concept of sovereign risk into the Northern Territory, which was done around their sudden announcement they would not support a uranium mine at Angela Pamela. Those utterances of the then Chief Minister, Paul Henderson, sent enormous shockwaves around the investment community across the globe. For the first time ever, in my knowledge anyway, the concept of sovereign risk was introduced to the Northern Territory by Paul Henderson and the previous Labor government.
The member for Casuarina is, once again, attempting to stir the little fibres of worry and fear amongst those in the investment community who are looking to invest in the Territory and might think twice. I am not even thinking about a gas reservation policy. I am thinking about doing something the former government did not; that is, work on the construction of an energy directorate.
This energy directorate will be high-level, will be made up of experts in the field, and will most likely include people like energy economists, resource experts and people who have an intimate knowledge of upstream and downstream processes, markets, and where they are available. It will be a high-level group providing strategic advice on energy policy to the minister. That is where we are going with that. I will not look at tiny chunks of policy in isolation. This is too important to the Northern Territory. We need to get this right for the future of the Territory and the people who live here.
All politics aside, I sincerely ask the member for Casuarina to think very carefully before he injects those suggestions into the debate. It is irresponsible, member for Casuarina, and I implore you to not do it.
The former Mines minister, the member for Casuarina, also spoke about a pipeline to Mount Isa. He thought the Moomba option might be better. I am not quite sure why; perhaps he needs a briefing. The concept which will be explored by this government and supported with $1m for a feasibility study by the federal opposition, if elected in September, will be to look at a gas pipeline which could connect the north/south pipeline in the Northern Territory to Mount Isa. There would be good reason for looking to the east. First, it connects a greater network of gas pipelines into the grid. Not only that, it makes sense to look at that as an option in light of what one might refer to as some of the stranded resources which exist in the Barkly region.
Of course, the Wonara project on the Barkly Highway would stand to benefit. While one was clearing the land use for a gas pipeline across that corridor - lo and behold - one might also clear a corridor for a train line. I do not think anyone on the other side mentioned anything like that.
I can assure the people of the Northern Territory that this Northern Territory government is prepared to look long and hard at the big picture future strategic ideas for the Northern Territory. A gas pipeline going east would be one. What else can we do with it? Why not look at a train line or at least clear the corridor at the same time? That is future planning and something the former Labor government simply was not very good at, which is why I made that impassioned plea to the new members across the other side to think beyond election cycles.
The member for Casuarina also spoke, in the context of this suggestion around removing veto rights for Aboriginal people on ALRA land, a little about the Koongarra project. The former minister needs to get a briefing. If he were up to date with his knowledge base he would know the Koongarra land is in the process of being repatriated into Kakadu National Park, so it is under veto at the moment. He probably does not know that, but it is under veto and it has another two or three years to go. In any case, as a Northern Territory government, we cannot affect what happens in that patch of land. It is suggested that the Commonwealth government is very keen and has introduced legislation in the federal parliament to have that bit of Koongarra placed back into Kakadu National Park which would, in effect, veto it forever and a day. I guess the member for Casuarina probably needs to get a little more contemporary knowledge and understanding of the current situation with a few of the mineral leases around the Northern Territory.
I also pick up on something the member for Braitling mentioned about downstream processing. He is quite right in what he said. The member for Braitling is amongst a very strong group of people on this side of the House passionate about building the Territory’s economy, and is looking at all sorts of ways to do that. Of course, downstream processing of gas is one area that could, potentially, benefit the Territory enormously.
I did not mention it in my statement, but I will mention now that while I was in the United States I took the opportunity to have some time in Freeport in Texas, where Dow Chemicals has an enormous downstream gas processing plant. From memory, they occupy about 200 000 acres of land on their lease at Freeport where they operate the gas plant with 65 different downstream processors of gas products. What is wonderful about what they do is everything that goes in comes out as some other product; there is virtually no waste and everything is consumed. It is just a matter of taking a by-product from something that is made, sending it to another part of the plant, adding another chemical to it and processing it and - lo and behold! - you have something else useful that comes out the other end. I am very interested in that concept, which is why I took the time to go to the Dow Chemicals’ plant and have a look at what they are doing.
There is no doubt in my mind that the future of the Northern Territory in oil and gas is very bright. We have quite a number of companies operating in the Territory onshore and offshore. The member for Casuarina must be reading my mind; I have also been considering Woodside and what is happening with them in relation to Western Australia. It is something that is well and truly at the front and centre of my radar because we recognise the Northern Territory, under a Country Liberals government, does not pose any sovereign risk. We are willing to work very hard with oil and gas producers, partners, and investors to try to bring every opportunity onshore to the Northern Territory.
In a short space of time, I have spent quite a number of days travelling to achieve that, sitting in boardrooms talking to people, trying to prick their interest in the Northern Territory. That is something I managed to achieve, fortunately, at the Houston Energy Conference. The speech I delivered as a keynote speaker was extremely well received.
My Department of Mines and Energy has received numerous calls arising from my attendance at that conference from companies interested in finding out more about the Northern Territory. They are looking to spread their operations across the globe into places that are friendly to invest in, that have governments that are willing to talk to them and facilitate what they want to do, and are prepared to put in the hard yards.
I am selling the Territory at every opportunity. I have had many meetings with many different companies over time. The singular message I have for them is that this government is pro-development; we want to see things happen.
Oil and gas sits within the resources sector. It is an important part of the economy, as I said. I pick up on something the Leader of the Opposition said. She said not once did I mention the three-hub economy. Do I need to stand here every time and say three-hub economy, three-hub economy, three-hub economy? They should get it. Clearly, they do because the Opposition Leader is echoing the words we have been using since coming to government and in the lead-up to the election in 2008. I am glad the Country Liberals’ message is sinking into the head of the Opposition Leader. She should heed what we say. I am pleased that message is getting out, Leader of the Opposition; our marketing is clearly working.
Madam Speaker, I again thank everyone for their contributions to this statement. This is a vitally important part of the Northern Territory’s economy. As the Minister for Mines and Energy, I will be working in a strategic and tactical sense every day, every week, every month that I am able to fulfil this role as the minister. The message I will send to the investment community is that this Northern Territory government is ready to do business with them.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I am doing a lot of talking today. I will describe the tremendous and growing opportunities for Northern Territory agribusiness exports and investment in Territory minerals exploration in this, the Asian century.
The Northern Territory government has identified food exports as a key component of its plan to develop a strong three-hub economy. There you go, Leader of the Opposition, I hope you are satisfied now. I have mentioned three-hub economy - great stuff. The message is sinking in over there, is it not?
The Territory’s primary producers are widespread from the Lyndavale Cattle Station in the south to Acacia Hills mango farm in the north, to Desert Garden Produce at Rainbow Valley selling delicacies in Coles supermarkets, and even the Kalano community farm near Katherine producing product for Woolies.
The member for Daly prompted me to commend the Kalano farm for what they are doing. They are producing what has been described as the best tomatoes the Katherine Woolworths has ever seen, as well as corn, which is highly in demand.
While I am talking about the different corners of the Northern Territory where our agribusiness is working so well, of course, the Mango Farm at the Daly is owned and operated by the good member for Daly. Welcome on board. I have had the opportunity to sample your mangoes and enjoy your hospitality, member for Daly, and it is wonderful.
These are just a few of the dedicated food producers working hard every day across the Northern Territory. In 2010-11, the Territory produced $448m worth of agricultural products, which is an outstanding achievement given our small population and challenging climate. Cattle and other livestock represented $285.3m, and horticultural crops represented $138.7m.
This government is determined to see a prosperous and healthy primary industry sector in the Territory. The recent mini-budget shows that determination. In December 2012, I announced an overall increase of $1.084m to the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries, as I want my department to be delivering for industry. Appropriate funding is, of course, the first step.
In September 2012, I made my first visit to Indonesia, and in November I represented this government and the Northern Territory on a visit to China. During these visits I saw first-hand the incredible transformation taking place across Asia. By the end of this decade, Asia will be the world’s largest consumer of goods and services. In the decades to come it will be home to the world’s largest middle class. This growing consumer group will demand high-quality food products, and this government wants to ensure the Territory benefits from meeting that demand.
In December 2012, the Chief Minister, the Minister for Business and I made an important visit to Indonesia. This government is committed to building and strengthening the Northern Territory ties with our closest Asian neighbour which are clearly of vital importance to our regional economy.
The Indonesian Archipelago is widespread and it takes six-and-a-half hours to fly from one end to the other. Indonesia boasts a rich culture and a multiracial population of almost 240 million people. In fact, I believe it might be a little more than that now. Its islands have the second-highest biodiversity on earth. Many Territorians have visited Indonesia and may also have personal and family ties there.
The opportunities for increased trade between the Territory and Indonesia are great, particularly when it comes to live cattle. Indonesia’s middle class grew from 38% to 56% between 2003 and 2010. Many middle-class Indonesians prefer fine cuisine to street hawkers.
While Indonesia has fertile volcanic soils and can feed itself easily despite its huge population, it is mountainous and does not have the extensive rangelands like the Northern Territory on which to breed cattle. That is why the live export trade represents such a good partnership between efficient cattle breeding operations in northern Australia and labour-intensive feedlots in Southeast Asia.
The Territory cattle industry is worth more than $280m a year, and the Northern Territory has approximately 220 pastoral leases and a cattle herd of approximately 2.1 million head. The pastoral industry turns off over 500 head annually, of which about half go to live export, with the majority going to Indonesia. However, the Australian government’s temporary trade suspension of live exports to Indonesia in 2011 and Indonesia’s reduction in import quotas, together with the strict enforcement of the 350 kg weight limit for feeder cattle, have had a significant impact on the Territory’s cattle industry.
This government is working collaboratively with the NT Cattlemen’s Association and the NT Livestock Exporters’ Association to build live cattle exports to Southeast Asia where there is tremendous scope for growth. For example, Indonesians currently eat 1.7 kg of beef per person per year. The Indonesian trade minister recently visited Canberra and suggested that, in the future, Indonesians will consume 20 kg of beef per person per year. To meet even a part of this demand, Indonesia will need to supplement its own cattle herd and increase imports of cattle. I would like to see the Territory exports grow to meet this future demand.
The Northern Territory starts from a position of strength in this respect. Respected organisations such as the NT Cattleman’s Association have built strong links with Indonesia, including exchange programs for students and farmers between the Territory and Indonesia.
This government is also making the relationship with Indonesia a top priority with the proposal to establish the AusIndo Forum. The forum will be established by government working with the Charles Darwin University, and will be designed to build and strengthen the relationship between Australia and Indonesia. We want to make Darwin a strategic meeting place between the two countries.
The Australian Agricultural Company, AACo, recently announced it will construct a new $85m abattoir in Livingstone 50 km south of Darwin. It will process 100 000 head of cattle per annum in Stage 1, with the capacity to handle 225 000 per annum once fully developed. This positive investment decision is most welcome and provides an opportunity for pastoralists across the north to sell cattle which are not suitable for the live export trade into the local slaughter facility. AACo has already started construction and the new meat processing facility will employ around 270 once operational. Boxed meat suitable for the halal trade will be available for sale. AACo has already indicated it is looking to sell its product in Asia and the United States of America.
The port of Darwin is a key component of the supply chain. That is why we are already in discussions with the Australia government about upgrading capacity.
The rise of China also represents vast new opportunities for trade and investment for Territorians. China’s urbanisation and industrialisation have led to the emergence of a wealthy middle class. With less household income being taken up by necessities, demand is growing for quality foodstuffs such as those the Territory can deliver.
In November 2012 in Beijing, I met with senior officials from China’s General Administration for Quality Supervision Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ). This organisation grants entry for food imports to China. I took the opportunity to present a wide range of agricultural products the NT currently produces, as well as some emerging products of the future.
During this meeting, it appeared much of the work done to date between Australia and AQSIQ relates to the cooler climate commodities such as dairy cattle, cherries and canola. However, I am determined to ensure Central and northern Australian producers also have opportunities to supply to the Chinese consumer market.
I see short- and medium-term opportunities for growing exports of Territory mangoes into China. Australia currently exports to 20 countries with the major markets being Hong Kong, New Zealand, Singapore and the United Arab Emirates. In the 2011-12 season, less than 10 000 tonnes of mangoes were exported and all of this went out of ports in Queensland, New South Wales and Western Australia. But, much of the export fruit came from the Territory.
The market access protocols for many markets require Australian fruit to be treated for fruit flies and facilities such as vapour, heat or irradiation disinfestation are not located in Darwin. Since the import protocol for Australian mangoes into China was granted in 2007, the supply of mangoes into China has grown and the relationship between grower/exporters and the Chinese importers has strengthened.
The Territory has some unique attributes for the production of excellent mangoes. We:
1. have very dry and warm conditions during the period of fruit development
2. plan to expand our production window from August through to February
3. will have three new varieties that will have excellent appeal to the Chinese consumer
4. have growers who are experienced in exporting
5. are working on alternative fruit fly market access protocols which, if successful, will negate the need for post-harvest disinfestation.
Melons - both watermelon and rockmelon – are the next major crop in the Territory with export opportunities. Many of our largest growers have farms across Australia, and usually export into Singapore out of ports in Melbourne or Sydney while producing in the NT.
Darwin’s attractiveness as a port for fresh food exports to Asia is expected to be boosted by greater availability of refrigerated containers in the future. The new AACo abattoir will need more of these refrigerated containers and my department is working with horticultural producers - mainly mango and melon growers - to identify the potential number of containers per week to meet export demand. A figure of 30 to 40 containers per week may be what is needed to attract a shipping company to expand its business and allow local producers to one day export directly from the Port of Darwin.
In the medium to long term, there are also opportunities for Territory packaged meat exports to China. Seafood exports to niche markets are also long-term possibilities for growing trade with China. China imported nearly $5bn worth of seafood in 2010, and Chinese seafood consumption is expected to triple by 2020. This government is committed to developing a sustainable contemporary seafood supply industry in the Territory, and with this development will come opportunities to tap into export markets.
While Northern Territory fisheries are not large, we produce a high-quality product and have the enviable position of not only having pristine waters, but a number of our fisheries are underutilised and have a capacity for growth. These include species such as shark, red snapper, mackerel and trepang. The government is committed to reducing the regulatory burden on Territory fishery business and will put in place procedures, policies, and legislation to ensure the Northern Territory regulatory environment is efficient and effective while enhancing its status as ecologically sustainable. This will create the necessary framework for industry sectors to maximise these potential opportunities.
I am pleased to say my first trip to China has increased my optimism about the export potential of Territory agribusiness. I have asked my department to build on contacts I made with officials in China because this government understands that long-term relationships are important to boosting trade.
However, the opportunities for our economy are not limited to growth in export markets. There is also a tremendous opportunity for the Northern Territory to engage with Chinese investors to stimulate our growing agricultural sector. This government has identified food as a key pillar to our economic future. The Western Australian government recently demonstrated how Chinese investment can work in the agricultural sector when it selected Kimberly Agricultural Investments, or KAI ...
Mr VATSKALIS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This is an important statement. I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Ring the bells.
There is a quorum.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
The Western Australian government recently demonstrated how Chinese investment can work with the agricultural sector when it selected Kimberly Agricultural Investment, or KAI, as its preferred proponent in the Ord region. KAI is a wholly-owned Shanghai company working with the Western Australian government to see how a new sugar industry can be established in the Ord irrigation scheme area, with the potential for expansion into the Territory.
This government has given the Ord development major project status. In the mini-budget, $400 000 funding was allocated to establish an Ord Development Unit in my department. In November 2012, the Chief Minister signed a memorandum of understanding with the Western Australian Premier, Hon Colin Barnett MLA and the Australian government Minister for Regional Australia, Hon Simon Crean MP, to collaborate and facilitate expansion and extension of the Ord irrigation scheme into the Northern Territory. It is about working together to capitalise on development opportunities. This is the first time an agricultural project has been granted major project status in the Northern Territory.
An across-agency task force has been established and work is already under way to get some of the key elements of this development started. There have been some preliminary meetings with the Northern Land Council as we seek to engage in respectful native title negotiations with the local Aboriginal custodians of the land in the Keep River and Knox Plain. The next steps will be crucial, and we are rolling up our sleeves to maximise the benefit of this opportunity for Territorians.
Solid Asian investment in agriculture in the NT is achievable and we are willing to see how much can be done. The Asian century represents many new opportunities. With their high incomes and advanced economies, Japan and South Korea remain important export markets for Australia. The Territory is proud of its links with Japan. I intend to make my first visit to Japan and South Korea in the first half of 2013 to strengthen these links and promote the NT’s primary producers. Countries such as India, Vietnam, Thailand and Malaysia also offer possibilities for trade due to their strong economic growth rates and young populations.
I take a moment to mention the Australia in the Asian Century White Paper released by the Commonwealth government in October 2012. The Territory plays a significant role in the recommendations of the White Paper reflecting our proximity to, and existing strong ties with, our Asian neighbours. The White Paper promised support for investment and transport infrastructure in northern Australia to assist food and agricultural exporters. This government looks forward to discussing the NT’s infrastructure needs with our federal counterparts.
The White Paper also recommends more ministerial engagement with counterparts in Asia, regular flows of people and ideas, and public servants with a sophisticated understanding of the region as well as Asian language capabilities. This new government is ahead of the game in those respects. The elevation of Asian engagement to the Chief Minister’s portfolio, the creation of an Office of Asian Engagement, a judicious program of visits to Asia, and the hosting of regular delegations from our neighbours are testament to the importance we place on engaging with Asia for the benefit of Territorians. My Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries has officers with solid experience in Asia and a suite of valuable contacts with their counterparts in other countries.
The Territory and Port of Darwin’s location, once disadvantaged due to its distance from the rest of Australia, now finds itself better placed than any other part of our country to benefit from the Asian century. The Territory’s primary industries are critically important to the future of our economy. Food exports are a key component of this government’s plan to develop a three-hub economy. This government has prioritised Asian engagement to build links and opportunities for Territorians.
A robust mining sector is another key element of this government’s plan to develop a strong three-hub economy in the NT. There is no doubt the mining industry is fundamentally important to the Territory. In 2011-12, this sector accounted for 19% of the NT’s economy, the single biggest contributor by far. The actual contribution of mining to our economy is even greater when you consider the additional contributions made by mining and energy-related processing and downstream activities, or the indirect contribution to the economy of mining service and support industries. Mining directly employs more than 4000 people, including many Indigenous Territorians, with many more people employed in related industries.
Yet, while these figures all attest to the strength and importance of the NT’s mining industry today, this government is committed to growing the resources sector in order to increase the future prosperity and development of the Territory, particularly our regional areas. That means boosting minerals and energy exploration across the NT in the short term so new discoveries can be made which will become the new mining projects of tomorrow.
Minerals exploration is not cheap and not without risk. Junior exploration companies that are active in the NT seeking tomorrow’s big discoveries find it difficult to attract funding within Australia at this time. In recent times, Chinese investors have proved willing to invest in the Territory’s minerals exploration. Since 2007, local exploration projects have secured over $200m in investment from China.
I am pleased to announce a significant new investment deal signed in January this year that will benefit local exploration. As a direct result of the investment attraction service the Department of Mines and Energy provides to NT exploration projects, TUC Resources has entered into an alliance with the Shandong Provincial Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources for a $21.25m investment. This alliance will drive exploration at the Stromberg rare earth project near Pine Creek. This is an exciting development and I congratulate both parties on their agreement and commitment to exploration in the Territory. This kind of investment is vital to realise the NT’s rich minerals potential, especially during tough economic times when traditional funding sources are harder for local explorers to access. Our investment attraction efforts operate in a highly competitive environment for investment dollars, both nationally and internationally.
In November last year, I led an industry delegation to China to promote opportunities for investing in local exploration and mining projects. Those from industry who joined the delegation represented exploration projects with a potential to benefit communities throughout Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine and the rest of Central Australia. This government is committed to ensuring all parts of the Territory benefit from the growth of the mining sector. The delegation was very well received. It is estimated my department organised a total of more than 100 meetings with potential Chinese investors for the six exploration companies on the trip. There have already been tangible results with negotiations under way to secure investment deals for at least two of those six companies. While it can take months or even years for investment agreements to be finalised, these early signs are very promising.
It is six years since my department started to promote minerals investment opportunities in China. With six years of learning available, I believe it is time for us to see what we can learn from that experience to date to achieve even more for NT explorers.
Much may also have changed in China during that time. China’s 12th five-year guideline was adopted in 2011 with significant new priorities such as a shift in investment from coastal areas towards rural and inland areas. During my time in China last year, a once-in-a-generation leadership change took place that will lead new policy direction for that nation.
I want to ensure my department of Mines and Energy strategy reflects the opportunity presented by today’s China as well as the new Territory government’s priorities. To that end, I have directed my department to develop a revitalised strategy for attracting Chinese investment into the NT minerals projects.
I will explain why Asia’s growth story presents so many opportunities for the Territory. According to the Australia in the Asian Century White Paper the combined output of China and India is likely to exceed that of the whole Group of Seven countries by early in the next decade. The economic growth of China and India is driven by mass urbanisation and industrialisation at staggering rates. Even the low growth scenarios for both India and China see their economies growing by more than 6% per annum to 2025. Achieving mass urbanisation and industrialisation requires natural resources the Territory is highly prospective for.
Steelmaking is at the heart of both urbanisation and industrialisation. The NT has many commodities crucial to steelmaking including iron ore, manganese, nickel, vanadium, molybdenum and niobium. My department sees strong potential for investment from overseas in these resources. I am informed that China holds very strong investment interest for iron ore, manganese, and niobium in particular, while India is likely to be very interested in securing nickel and niobium supplies for its growing steelmaking industries.
Beyond steelmaking there are also resources used more broadly in the construction activity needed to achieve urbanisation. Copper, titanium, zinc and uranium are all in demand to support the changes taking place in India and China. This demand has the potential to lead to investment in Territory projects for those economies.
I do not know what has happened to the clock, Madam Speaker, it has stopped.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, you have unlimited time on a ministerial statement.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Thank you, Madam Speaker, I will continue. I should have made it a few more pages long.
It is not only investors from the emerging economies of China and India that may provide the investment needed to grow the NT’s exploration sector. Japan and South Korea are already among the world’s most advanced economies. While their economies will grow at more modest rates than those of China and India, there is good reason to consider them potential sources of investment for Territory exploration projects.
Both Japan and South Korea are at the forefront of high technology, electronics and green industries and are determined to maintain that leadership. Those industries need commodities neither Japan nor South Korea possess such as rare earth elements, lithium, copper, tantalum and silver. The NT has the potential to be a secure and stable supplier of those resources.
Last, the Territory has the potential to provide the potash and phosphate many countries throughout Asia need to improve the quality of their farmland and boost food production for their large populations.
As well as developing an updated strategy for attracting minerals investment from China, my Department of Mines and Energy is preparing plans to capitalise on the opportunities for the NT presented by the resource needs of Japan, South Korea and, in the medium to long term, India. Engaging with these key markets regularly is important to build the personal relationships and trust needed to secure investment.
I outline some of the concrete actions this government will take in 2013 to attract international investment into our minerals sector. I am excited to announce, in May 2013, this government will host the Australia China Minerals Investment Summit in Darwin. This event will bring over 100 Chinese investors to meet with local explorers and Territory business people to discuss investment opportunities. My department is working closely with other government agencies, including Tourism NT and the Department of Business, to ensure the broader local economy can benefit from this event. Some of the large industry associations I met with in China are actively promoting this event to their members. That is important because those associations also represent companies outside the mining industry. In May 2013, the Australia China Minerals Investment Summit will also present the opportunity to promote investment in Territory projects in other areas such as agriculture, infrastructure, international education and tourism, all of which are crucial to this government’s plan for a three-hub economy.
This government aims to lead another minerals industry delegation to the China Mining Congress in Tianjin in November 2013 to link local explorers and business people with our investment contacts in China.
In November 2012, my department trialled a commodity targeted approach to identify investors which was very successful. This approach will be expanded in 2013. The benefit of this approach is it enables a smaller jurisdiction such as the NT to achieve results in a single annual visit. This allows us to compete for profile with other Australian state and territory governments which often have a permanent presence in China. It is all about doing more with less.
In regard to Japan and South Korea, my department will take an industry delegation to those countries in mid-2013 to maintain relationships and ensure the message is understood: under this government the Territory is ready to do business with them. The NT has a unique opportunity to build relations in these markets at a time when the world appears focused on China. We can assure investors in Japan and South Korea that the Territory is a stable and secure place to invest and this government is committed to Asia-wide engagement.
In this Asian century this government is committed to building a stronger engagement with our Asian neighbours than ever before. We recognise the future of trade and investment in the Northern Territory lies to our north.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of this statement.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, it is my great pleasure to speak to the minister’s statement. I start back to front because his portfolio is very similar to what I had previously and what I am shadow minister for today. I start with mining.
It is really good to listen to the minister again highlighting the achievements of the Labor government over the past 10 years. I note with interest he discovered that Asia extends beyond the shores of Indonesia. He discovered Japan, Korea, India and China. I congratulate him for that because the reality is the future of the Northern Territory, and indeed the future of Australia, is Asia. The Asian tigers are the ones who need our resources and who have the money to invest in our industry.
There are some people who are fearful of Asia taking over Australia. The reality is, they can come and do business here, but they cannot take anything with them back to Asia. Let us not forget there was a time when BHP invested in Chile and other Latin American countries, and nobody batted an eyelid in Australia; everybody was very proud an Australian company was investing in a foreign country. Now, we have to accept the fact that we do not live in different continents, different countries; we live in a global village. It is very easy for people living on the other side of the world to have interests in another country.
I highlight that I am very excited about the minister going to China and that he continues to promote the Territory in China because I said all along that China is the future of the Territory. At the same time, the minister can be proud of what he is doing, but we created the basis for it. It was the Labor government that managed to get the Territory in the Fraser Institute; the first of all jurisdictions in Australia to do business in mining. It was the Labor government, in our time, which managed to get the Territory 11th in the world as the place to do business in mining and exploration. I am very pleased he builds up on our past achievements. I wish him luck because it does not matter what happens or what government is in the Territory, being successful in selling the Territory overseas and attracting capital into the Territory means jobs and wealth for Territorians. I said before and I will say again: forget the political issues; I am quite happy to support any attempt, effort, or trip he makes to promote the Territory, especially with mining, oil and gas, and continue from that with agricultural development. I encourage the minister to continue his trips to China.
In the Territory in the past, we have shown other states in Australia we do not need to have a luxury office in Shanghai or Beijing; we can be there twice a year and do more than they achieve by having a permanent representative there. It is about targeting the right people in the right places, and selling the right commodities. We did our homework before we went there to find out what the Chinese wanted. They want iron ore, zinc, manganese, niobium, and uranium. That is exactly what we promoted when we went there. That is exactly why we took the right people with the right projects to the Chinese investors, and introduced a number of other companies from the Territory which needed the capital and a joint venture to be developed with companies like TCU and Shandong, and the T&G and ECE. The Chinese investors have the money and are prepared to invest in the Territory.
Speaking about investing in the Territory, it was a Chinese company that entered into a joint venture with an Australian company that exported the mineral sands on the Tiwi Islands. It is my understanding this Chinese company continues to invest in the Territory company for further exploration of the Tiwi Islands for more mineral sands.
You might ask whether it is important. Yes, it was, because this mine developed on the Tiwis provided jobs for a number of Tiwi people. Not only did it provide jobs for them, it was also the first export of mineral sands from the Tiwi Islands. There are a number of other companies. For example, Xstrata at McArthur River is training young Indigenous people from Borroloola to drive the big trucks, not to do the light work they used to do in the past. About 50 Indigenous people from Borroloola now have jobs in the mine, with quite a good salary, and they do not have to rely on welfare. Bigrlyi is the other mine to be developed in the Territory near Yuendumu. Over the next few years, again with Chinese capital, it will be one of the biggest employers in the area.
It is important we continue to develop the strategy we put in place as a Labor government in the past 10 years. It is important we continue to go to Southeast Asia and China to promote the resources of the Territory, and to attract investment from China. It is important we go to China with local project owners and potential developers to introduce them.
I recall when I first went to China nobody knew where Darwin was. It was only two years ago that the current President of China, Xi Jinping visited Darwin and spent two days here. This put Darwin and the Territory in the forefront in China. If a Chinese leader is visiting a small place like Darwin, that place must be important and they would like to know more about it. It is important to continue that.
I congratulate the minister and the department for putting together a program in May and inviting Chinese companies to the Territory because it is different to us going there telling them what we have in the Territory. It is more important to get them here to show them the Territory and its potential. There is not only mining and resources; there is also tourism. These people may go back and think the Territory is a place to visit. Some of these people have significant influence in China and they know many other people. In China, it is not what you are, what qualifications you have, it is who you know. If people I know in China know many people, the doors open along with opportunities for us to do more business.
It is because of these people we might manage to bring an airline from China. We now have China Southern Airlines which flies from Guangzhou to Perth, passing over Darwin nearly every day. It never stops in Darwin. If Chinese interests believe there may be tourism opportunities in the Northern Territory then that tourism interest can persuade the airlines in China for a stopover once or twice a week in the Northern Territory.
There are opportunities in Southeast Asia. Japan is another country that is very important for the Northern Territory because of the demand by Japanese companies for mineral resources and gas. There is significant development every year in Korea, another Asian tiger, and significant demand for minerals, particularly uranium since about 80% of the electricity produced in Korea comes through nuclear energy. The biggest producer is the state-owned power generation industry.
It is not only the mineral resources. There are other potentials, some of which can be realised today, and some that will take time to develop. It took time to develop the opportunity in China. We had to visit time after time, twice a year, for the past four or five years, to get to know the right people to put the Territory on the map for mineral resources. The same has to happen for anything else, such as agricultural products, fisheries or even mangoes. You cannot access the Chinese market easily. The Chinese can place many obstacles to protect their industry, as we found out.
The other matter is the cost of production. When you compare our cost of production in Australia to the Chinese, ours is significantly higher than in China for nearly everything. That is the reason many of our products will not reach China. For example, most of our products from Australia have to be exported frozen, such as fish, yet the Chinese prefer fresh seafood. It might be a problem. Every day, fresh seafood is exported in aquariums by plane from Queensland to Hong Kong or Taiwan, not frozen. That shows you the preference of the local population and what needs to be considered before we decide we can go to China and sell as much seafood as we can.
Another thing I discovered with agriculture is the reason why we could not sell mangoes to Asia. I spoke to one of the locals who advised me that the mangoes in Australia are fantastic, ‘They are very good, but they are too big’. I asked him, ‘What do you mean too big?’ He said, ‘If I buy a mango to take home and I have to pay $5 that means only one person in the family will eat the mango. If I have two or three people in the family, I would rather pay less, buy smaller mangoes so everybody in the family can have one’. I never thought about that. I thought we had a good quality product; we could go out, flog it, and people would buy it. They did not because of the cost and the preferences of the local people. The same thing applies in many other products.
When I go to China and Singapore, I always go to the supermarket. I always have a look at what products they sell, where these products come from, and how much they cost. I am always surprised when I go to Singapore and find products from America or other countries around the region in the supermarkets, but very few Australian products apart from wine. I am also surprised when I go to Singapore and find French wine selling much cheaper than Australian wine. Our cost of production has to come down; we have to become more efficient. As the minister quite rightly pointed out, in the Territory there are conditions favouring us to produce the right product in the wrong season for other countries. We have to become more efficient and develop agriculture in a more sustainable way, in a much cleverer way, in order to break into these markets.
Another thing that kills us in the Territory is the fact that we do not have airlines we can use to ship containers to export fresh produce in a very short period of time to other countries in Asia. It was a few years ago when Qantas used to fly a 767 out of Darwin. We put flowers, mangoes and other produce on the plane to be exported via Singapore to other countries. Since then, the Qantas 767 flies to Brisbane, and from Brisbane to Asia. That means double handling; double the cost for any product from the Territory, particularly fresh produce.
There are opportunities in the Territory for joint ventures in agriculture and aquaculture. My links in China indicate to me that many Chinese companies are very interested in investing in the Territory, especially in aquaculture. They believe Australian fisheries are the cleanest and the most sustainable in the world and they want to cash in on that product. They are not interested in mass production and mass sale into big markets, they want to attract the niche buyer, the one who is prepared to pay top dollar for good quality product. We should target that particular niche market. We should not try to sell everything to everyone in Asia. Get that niche market, the one that attracts the best return for our product, because that will benefit our people in Australia.
The Chinese are also concerned about food security. Food security enhances the proposal to invest heavily in north Australia. It is the Ord River development which has commenced in Western Australia, but still has to commence in the Territory. Knowing the history, as a previous minister, I tell the current minister it will take time and effort. The advice I give you is to ensure the company that wants to develop the Ord on our side pays for the infrastructure.
It will be impossible for any Territory government to cough up $0.5bn or a $1bn to develop the infrastructure and negotiate with the Indigenous people for the development of the Ord area in the Northern Territory. First, the cost to negotiate with the Indigenous people would be enormous, and quite rightly so. The people who live in Western Australia are the same people who live in the Northern Territory. They have already received a very good compensation package from Western Australia and will demand the same from the Northern Territory. In addition to that, infrastructure like water, power, roads and even a railway would be too expensive for the Northern Territory government to meet.
We had made clear to the company that met the minister and us before the election, that we would only consider developing the Ord with them if they put up the money for the infrastructure. It is not fair for the Territory taxpayer to meet the cost of developing an area which then can be utilised by a private company, overseas or local, to make money for their shareholders.
The Ord is a unique development and can be the future of northern Australia. You may notice it is not proposed to be the food bowl of Southeast Asia. Instead, the Chinese company from Shanghai is proposing to produce sugar - not food products but sugar for their own reasons. Sugar is a commodity that commands high prices now but there is the potential of ethanol in the future.
The Ord is a significant development but, at the same time, we should not forget the areas we have in the Territory around Katherine, Mataranka, even south of Tennant Creek, and in Alice Springs that can be developed. I am glad the minister mentioned the example of Kalano because it is a fantastic development. This is a good example of how the private sector, private supermarkets, can support an Indigenous community to diversify and produce agricultural products. Many people said it would never happen. I was pleasantly surprised when I saw the produce sold in Katherine was produced by the Kalano community. It is the same as the Indigenous Le Rossignol family in Alice Springs producing olive oil which they sell in the local markets and boutique shops in Alice Springs. When I tell my friends in Greece that we produce olives and olive oil in the middle of the desert in Australia they are surprised. There is potential to develop that area and that industry, and the department can assist.
Yes, we had some failures in the past - quite a few - but we had some successes. We have to persevere and ensure local Indigenous people can utilise their land for their and their children’s benefit. There is land out there. Things can grow on land. If Israelis can grow lettuce in the desert think what we can grow on our rich land which has water and a workforce where the land is available.
Madam Speaker, I thank the minister very much for his statement. As I said before, it is great to hear some praise from you about the things we achieved. I encourage you to continue to focus on Asia; it is the future of Australia. As a matter of fact, Australia is in Asia; this is our neighbourhood now and will be for the future. We have to consider who our neighbours are. The Northern Territory is in the centre of the universe. If you look to the south of our Northern Territory we have about 30 million potential clients. Look to the north of the Territory and you have two billion potential clients.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I add my comments to the minister’s statement, specifically the agribusiness side of his statement. In the introduction, the minister raised the issue of horticulture and more intense farming such as Asian vegetables - very large contributors to the NT economy.
One problem we have growing this industry is labour. It is not the only impediment to growth but one we can assist our growers with. As most people are aware, there are large numbers of European backpackers used in this industry. I use them at the Daly and have made many lifetime friends and still keep in contact with many of them all over Europe.
We export much of our produce to Asia and have a large number of Asian horticulturalists, yet we have very few backpackers from Asia. This issue has been raised with me across my electorate which covers a large number of the big mango farms outside the greater Katherine region. I ask members to imagine themselves as someone who uses English as a second language; for instance Vietnamese - this would be easier for our Indigenous members - then think of yourself a German backpacker who also has English as his second language - this double translation can cause many problems. When we employ backpackers for this type of work we first need to introduce them to the farm and the daily work they are required to do. We have programs such as Freshcare and the Woolworths specific programs which require us to keep a detailed track of our fruit from the trees, through our processing and what chemicals are used, so we need to keep a track of batch numbers and so forth. These things need to be explained to the backpackers. Imagine how difficult it is to explain that to someone who speaks English, let alone someone who then has to translate it into their home tongue, when the person who is trying to explain also has English as a second language.
If we have a close look at our backpackers and how we get them into Australia, they all come on work visas. To get these visas they need to have some financial base behind them. While this is possible for most of our European backpackers, it is less achievable in our closer Asian countries, therefore, this is one of the reasons we get fewer of these backpackers in Australia. This is a federal issue in regard to access to visas to come to Australia, but we need to raise the issue and see what can be done to improve access to Asian workers. They are much closer to the Territory anyway. The use of workers from the South Pacific was implemented as a solution to our seasonal worker shortfall more on the east coast. We need to pressure the federal government to consider a similar plan that gives our Asian produce growers access to workers from Asia as a solution to this language problem. This is probably a good thought, especially as we see them as the market for our produce.
The darker complexion of our Asian neighbours has the benefit that they are less prone to mango sap allergies. For every 10 European backpackers I employ, I have to get rid of four of them within a week and replace them because they have a reaction to the mango sap, not the hard work.
I ask our minister to consider this side of the industry when he next discusses this with his federal counterparts to see if some solution could be found that enables our Asian produce growers to get easier access to workers from these countries.
The second issue I raise is the issue of aquaculture. This has great potential here. Today on the radio I heard - and I think AM was being broadcast from a prawn farm in Queensland that grows tiger prawns. One criticism I have heard from sceptics of this type of industry is the large amount of protein input we need to get protein out. Some figures are as high as 10 kg of protein to get 1 kg of prawns. The prawn farm in Queensland made the statement today that they are getting closer to a 1.5 kg protein input to getting a 1 kg protein of prawn meat out. That is something that really needs to be remembered when people start looking at aquaculture in the Territory.
Madam Speaker, the rest of the statement was very good and I cannot add any more to it.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, it is an honour to speak on a statement that deals with agriculture in the Northern Territory. I thank the minister for bringing this statement to the House and congratulate him, because he is in the driving seat of what is the future of real prosperity in the Northern Territory. Decision-making at a party level, a political level, and at an individual level, will be very important in maximising the opportunities in the pastoral, agriculture, and horticulture sectors.
I will fine-tune a little and talk about the opportunities in a regional context, highlighting the opportunities that are coming out of the Barkly region in the Northern Territory, a region that has been very much the beneficiary of the previous government’s investment in exploration for minerals and what is shaping up to be the breadbasket of minerals for the Northern Territory into the future.
The minister talked about Indonesian export cattle and Indonesia as a great market, a great ally, and a great friend of the Northern Territory. I encourage the minister to use his contacts and opportunities to explore what happened to Oceanic Holdings and Kiana Station, because this was the obvious model to develop Indonesian investment into a cattle property that had property to grow cattle as we do on the Barkly. We are not famous for fattening them, but we can certainly grow them. Oceanic Holdings set up Kiana to breed and grow cattle, and then did the logical thing with an investment in the Douglas Daly, which was the finishing or fattening station. Unfortunately, Oceanic Holdings, the Indonesian investment company, walked away from that a couple of years ago and destocked Kiana. Now, Kiana has been picked up by an Australian mob which is restocking the place. They have negotiated a lease to grow their own cattle on the place.
It would be good if the minister can explore why that model went wrong, because it looked good, it was logical, it was the perfect supply chain but it has broken down. I am interested to hear the traps and pitfalls of why that model for raising live export cattle and working them straight into the Indonesian market did not work.
That also goes to the issue of diversity in the beef market and relates to the Australian Agriculture Company’s project of an export abattoir. I can talk first-hand about the Tennant Creek export abattoir and the prosperity that brought to the mining town of Tennant Creek in economically diversifying as well as creating an export product that can go beyond the realm of live export; that is, live steers travelling on boats to closer neighbours.
The Tennant Creek abattoir was a good story in the early 1980s. It related to the era of the Brucellosis and Tuberculosis Eradication Campaign. There was much destocking happening within the Northern Territory. There was a lot of product and, therefore, there was much diversity in the beef - from bulls through to bullocks, steers, and Cracker cows. A market like America was processing beef into the fast food chain, and everything was able to be minced. That was a good outcome for a destocking initiative within the Territory and for cleaning up the industry. It provided diversity for places to get rid of the ‘rogue’ animals and concentrate on breeding programs. Then came the more closely managed cattle station behind wire and the highly sophisticated places we see across the Barkly today.
That is Australian Agriculture’s story. I believe the minister supports AACo’s project, as the previous government also supported this project. It has great benefits of an export abattoir that can send frozen product beyond the boundaries of live export and get into the ultimate market for selling protein in the future, which is China. Its emerging middle class and need for protein as a nutritional supplement is phenomenal. I am sure the minister will progress those ideas.
The Ord River story is a big story for agriculture. There are some very sensitive native title issues to be negotiated in relation to the total success of the Ord Stage 3 on the Northern Territory side of the border. The new Country Liberal Party government will have to take stock of their track record around the solution to land rights and native title issues in the past. There are many new members on board and they will have a new take on how to achieve this. The advice I always give is negotiate, not litigate. Let us hope the new government can look into that area.
The previous Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries and Resources has given them some good tips on those challenges around infrastructure, delivery, and broadacre farming as opposed to food production. There is great potential but it has to be managed very carefully.
I will trim it back to what are real opportunities at the moment. I draw the minister’s attention to the Ti Tree area of the Northern Territory around to Singleton Station, just south of Tennant Creek, which not only has opportunities for agriculture with access to good soil, but also has the aquifer for water sources. Those areas around McLaren Creek Station, Singleton, and the Ti Tree area have exceptional underground reserves of very good water. It is shallow, easy to get, high quality, and there is a lot of it. It is an area that has been looked at for a long time as potential for agricultural projects. This is not the grand scale of the Ord, but a more intensive area that would support good regional development initiatives.
We have an example in the Ali Curung watermelon farm. The Ali Curung watermelon farm is a great example of good native title negotiations. It is an example of good planning and support from the previous government. What was negotiated was, essentially, approximately 400 ha of very viable land with great water supplies that produces a crop of watermelons and pumpkins. The next plan, Stage 2 of the farm, is pomegranates. These products are quite easy to grow. They can achieve two crops of watermelons and pumpkins a year. They are close to infrastructure for transport and present really good returns that can be scaled up.
That will grow not only the agriculture sector in the regional areas, but will also offer jobs. The member for Daly talked about the issues around workers and agriculture, which is very true. He talked about his solution of skilled migration visas and backpackers. The Ali Curung watermelon farm is a very good example, because it is about 5 km away from a community of around 400 people …
Mr Wood: And only one works.
Mr McCARTHY: Yes, there are times when there are no workers from the community at the watermelon farm.
I have my ideas about that. I do not have time to share those in deconstructing colonial policy and the era of the missions and welfare settlements; that is for another time. I continue the dialogue with the residents of Ali Curung and the wider Barkly and tell them they should be looking at this opportunity not because they will learn to grow watermelons, chip weeds or grow cabbages, but because they can get real experience in industry, which means operating machines like forklifts, trucks, tractors, and harvesting equipment. They can learn to work in real industry and make contact with an exceptional team that runs that watermelon farm, and the exceptional philanthropist who established it. From there they can go to other areas of Australia and get connected to experience real prosperity.
There is a real tension about having the opportunity and the workforce. Now it is up to us to fuse those two elements to get really good returns. The member for Namatjira talked about this. Now she is in the saddle we hope there will be more dialogue, opportunities, and training to employment that can focus on these really good regional initiatives, with the minister for Resources looking at those further opportunities. There are many people who want to expand those agricultural opportunities in Central Australia.
There is an exciting project that was brokered and delivered by the previous Labor government, and the new minister has carriage of it. A new government can crow about all their initiatives because they have the numbers. The project is related to the Ali Curung watermelon farm. A 16-bed prisoner work camp has been negotiated there. I worked hard on it. It came off and I received many nice phone calls to congratulate the previous government on the project.
What it represents is an extension of the Barkly work camp. It was always designed for prisoners to be able to live onsite and experience real employment and training to deliver those outcomes where they will be in a working context which supports what I call a world view. They will see the bigger picture, experience a hard day’s work, be able to sit around and talk to other people and get new ideas, be motivated and, essentially, develop their self-esteem. That will be a whole new take on Corrections. It is not exactly locking people up, but making opportunities in alternative sentencing. It will be run in conjunction with the Barkly work camp. It is a great model and I congratulate the new Minister for Correctional Services. He will enjoy that opportunity and see the real fruits of his labour.
The other area we have to talk about is minerals in the Barkly, the breadbasket of minerals. When you talk about gold, copper, manganese, iron ore, cobalt and bismuth we are talking about real opportunities in future mines. I ask the minister to keep his foot on the pedal with the exploration programs and where government can support exploration. The Minerals Council has been calling for that same support recently and they are giving advice to keep the foot on the pedal because the exploration programs are going on all over the Barkly.
We are now starting to see the next stage with mining. There is the Western Desert Resources project. I have just come through the Gulf Country where I spent a couple of weeks out bush. There is buzz around Borroloola at the moment because the mine haul road, that 160 km of road, has started from both ends and the contractors are in Borroloola spending money and locals are getting jobs. I will put in a big plug for Joseph Kidd who I bumped into. He is an ex-student of mine from Kargaru School in 1980. I watched that young fellow grow up through the ranks and he is now on the contract team building that road, supervising and mentoring new staff. Jungali, it is great to catch up with you again and see your success. I wish you all the best because you are a fantastic role model.
I encourage the minister to not just think about exploration and new mining projects, but the rehabilitation of old tailings. There are many very interested companies around the Barkly which were talking to the previous government. It relates to both east and west of Tennant Creek. That big mining era of the past left significant tailings which can be treated onsite. They can be carved up and sold off individually, or they have markets that will take them in their raw state. Some companies are able to truck those tailings out and sell them overseas where they will be smelted and divided up according to their mineral wealth. These are also great ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! As riveted as I am with this speech, I suggest the next five minutes occur at a later date. As it is now 5.30 pm, it is time for General Business Day.
Mr McCARTHY: What do you think, Mr Deputy Speaker, five minutes to go or we get straight into ...
Mr Deputy SPEAKER: Member for Barkly, being 5.30 pm, in accordance with Standing Order 93, debate is suspended and General Business will now have precedence over Government Business until 9 pm.
Debate suspended.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the government scraps the $20 charge that will be required to be paid at MVR offices by Territorians who do not wish to, or cannot, pay the renewal of their registration or licence fees via the Internet or over the telephone.
The minister made a statement today which I was pleased to hear. I thank you, minister, for that statement. He mentioned the member for Drysdale doing a fantastic job. I did not quite get that type of praise; I was called a dog whistler. I am unsure what the difference between the two of us is but, obviously, I am a dog whistler. We achieved the same thing ...
Ms Finocchiaro: I take offence to that.
Mr WOOD: I was not saying you were, I was having a go at him.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! In the interest of correcting the record and rubbing the back of the member for Nelson, I would like to now refer to him as a chicken whistler.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. Go on, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: That is okay. I am not sure whether that is praise or just making it worse.
All jokes aside, I thank the minister for his change of heart in relation to this. It was an ill-conceived idea. I understand where it came from. The minister could argue this is how we needed to encourage people to get online. Great idea! Your answer in parliament today was a fairly good indication that you have increased the number of people who use MVR online, and that is terrific. I have no problem with that at all. I had problems with using that as the method to get people online, when you could have just encouraged people.
I have some other concerns. One of the concerns was you can ring on the phone. A bloke rang me and said, ’Yes, I got on the phone and sat there for 20 minutes’. I should have said to him, ‘You could have sat and read War and Peace’, because that is a famous novel the minister seems to promote fairly regularly in his speeches. You could have moved the queue from the MVR office to someone’s workplace. He just said, ‘I just about hung up because you sit on the line and, yes, your call will be answered in 10 minutes, you are No 307 on the list, and we will get to you soon’. If you are not careful you can replace a queue with a queue.
The other thing I am interested in, minister, is you said there are a couple of iPads at the MVR offices. Do you get a queue there because they are still coming to the office? If there is no queue - as you indicated to me just then - at the iPads, why is there not a queue if you are served by two public servants? You still have to stand there and put your details into an iPad, so there is time taken to do that. If there is no queue, no bank-up of people waiting to use those two iPads, why can they not just go to the front counter? Put a couple more staff on, that is all I am saying.
I was trying to work the logic out, because much of this argument was about reducing queues, getting people out of MVR offices to do their work online. Some of what you were saying seemed to me to be removing the queue from here to there - no queues of people backing up in front of the counters, but queues on the phone and in front of the iPads. That is where I had some concern that it sounded good but, in actual fact, it still caused problems.
The whole approach you have towards streamlining MVR is very good. I came to this motion originally - before you made the announcement today - to give you my two bob’s worth, but I will not do that because I will give credit where it is due. I understand we can play politics too. I believe you have done the right thing and what you are trying to do is good for the people of the Northern Territory.
However, we also have to remember - and this is not just about you - there are people who are not IT savvy, who do not want to use their credit card over the phone, who want the right to go to an MVR office or any other government office and be served. It is called customer service. When we pay our registration fees, we pay an administration fee of $9, I think it is, so we can be served by those people because we pay their wages. That was an important principle that was being missed.
People have the right to go to the MVR office, because it is not always about going to the Post Office or somewhere else. In Palmerston, you might be on your way to Maccas, ‘While I am going past Maccas I will go and pay my licence. Oh no, that is a silly idea, you will cop $20, that could have been two Big Macs with regular chips and a diet coke’. That would have been a bit of a waste ...
Mr Giles interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Shush, do not tell my missus.
The mistake was that you did not understand that there are some people in our society who simply do not want to use that method of payment. You have to govern for all people. It is similar to when Telstra decided to charge people for paying their bill at Australia Post. It used to have ‘Pay at Australia Post’ at the bottom of their bill. A couple of years ago, Telstra decided to charge $2. There was a big hue and cry and the fee was scrapped because the customer was told to pay the bill at Australian Post but was then whacked with a $2 fee. We are dealing with people who go to a shop that is designed to take money for licences and registration, but we penalise them when they get customer service by charging $20.
My argument is the government is introducing a fee which has not been thought through properly. It has not taken into account all people; it is only taking into account some people: the ones who are smart and can use their computer. They can do it on their smartphone; they do not mind using their credit card over the phone. There are probably plenty of those people. I order things over the Internet or over the phone, but my wife would not.
You also have the issue of what happens in the bush. If I live on an outstation where there is no Internet service or telephone, and I turn up at the police station to register my car or renew my registration, what is the issue regarding paying this $20 fee? Would people have to pay that $20 if they turned up at the local police station?
Mr Giles: I already answered that.
Mr WOOD: It was not clear then. That is why I have asked for clarification. I wanted to ensure those people were not penalised as well.
I brought the motion forward, regardless of all the to-ing and fro-ing, because I believed it was an unfair impost on people. I know the government wants to raise money. This would not have raised much money; you would still have had to spend money on handling the money. I do not know what you would have made out of it in the end. I hope you understand that I felt this fee was not fair.
Before Christmas, I raised this issue and got into a fair bit of strife. I went to a Christmas party for the old timers. I was doing my Father Christmas stint, as I do occasionally at that time of year, and people there told me that some of them do not operate computers, smartphones or pay over the phone. I went to the Fibre Craft Guild at Humpty Doo. Every Wednesday, a group of people, probably my age and older, love to sit down and do a bit of needle work, have a nice cup of tea, some scones, jam and cream, and enjoy one another’s company. I sat down with them and had a chat. They told me that some can use computers and some cannot. That is where the problem with this has come from. The government did not have its feet on the ground or was not in touch with the people it needed to be in touch with. All I did was reflect what those people’s concerns were.
Before Christmas, I was rubbished by the Treasurer - and then a bit more - but I was being genuine about the concerns of a group of people. It is my responsibility to raise their concerns in this parliament. I have done that and would have done more today if the government had not changed its mind. I hope the minister takes that criticism in good faith because I want to at least balance it with the reality of the situation on the day the minister changed his mind.
He has done well to turn things around at the MVR. I used to hate the queues. Occasionally, I went to the office in Goyder Road and there were all these new counters where people will serve you, but even though they had plenty of them, there were not many people in them. They looked impressive. There was a move to try to speed up service, but there were times when that just did not happen
I thank the minister for looking at that issue. Obviously, many working people get very frustrated because they go to the MVR at lunchtime trying to fix up their registration or licence. If what the government has introduced can enable those people to be served much quicker, that is good. Once again, minister, there was a genuine concern from people, and I thank you for at least accepting that was the issue.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Drysdale for also getting behind this. I did not intend any insult at all, by the way, member for Drysdale; that was just taking the mickey out of the minister. I thank you for your support and I thank the minister for changing his mind.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will talk through a couple of issues that are really confusing for me. First of all, the minister being rolled in Cabinet to implement what was a politically very unpopular decision to raise - I will use the same analogy – chicken feed. The irony is this initiative to try to sting everybody $20 to queue up backfired because in trying to be popular and reduce the queues at the Motor Vehicle Registry, which is a real issue, this minister, the Chief Minister, and the Country Liberal Party, became very unpopular.
How the hell did that ever get through Cabinet? I struggle to understand what is happening in the Country Liberal Party Cabinet when a minister of the calibre of the member for Braitling, the possible next Chief Minister - I can see the odds have shortened considerably on the leader board today - a minister with real potential to be the Chief Minister in the Northern Territory was rolled in Cabinet for $20. It beggars belief, but it is good to see he achieved it and the Chief Minister today said the decision was overturned. It was quite ridiculous. They admit that. It was a very unpopular thing to do politically and it was scrapped. People in the Northern Territory will applaud that backflip. It is important to have the humility to say, ‘We got it wrong’. Do not be ever frightened to show humility, Country Liberals, because sometimes that can win you a couple of votes in the popularity stakes as well.
I was privileged to be the Minister for Transport in the previous government, which worked tirelessly on the same issues. I remember doing the media conference where we introduced the quick queue. Recently, I had the opportunity of using that with my younger son who got his learner’s licence. I decided to hit an urban motor registry at a peak time and go through the queue system to see how we went. I was very impressed watching the staff of the Motor Vehicle Registry processing an enormous number of customers. Everything was moving; everything was travelling through smoothly. There was no doubt about waiting times and that the public does not like to wait, but it was good to see that working.
This minister has taken it upon himself to continue those improvements, and that is good. There was much legwork already done by the previous government. Many ideas were presented to the new minister and he is now moving on it. However, he was sucked in big time with the $20 sting which was so badly advised. I am wondering where it came from. My only thoughts are that it must be from that infamous Renewal Management Board digging in deep to Territorians’ pockets, not only smashing them with major price hikes, but taking their last $20 to queue at MVR. However, it has been overturned. Let us dwell on the positives.
The minister would be faced with the same challenges the previous government had which were - the way you address this is various; you look at more staff and more offices. The minster told us today in Question Time about the remote MVR offices coming online, an initiative of the previous government. This minister - the wanna-be Chief Minister, the possible next Chief Minister - is saying we spoke about it and he will deliver it. The public sector will testify to the fact that these things do not happen overnight. There has been an enormous amount of work to deliver the first Motor Vehicle Registry offices into the remote areas. Good luck to the new minister because that is what we need out there. It may be you who delivers it; we will wait to see. We will give you any support you need on that front.
When it comes down to the logic of more staff and more offices, that is when costs start to escalate. The Renewal Management Board has set the tone in the CLP Cabinet that there will be no more of that. It is about taking, not giving. The new minister had to look at alternatives and took some really bad advice, was rolled in Cabinet, rolled out a $20 sting, and, thank heavens, the Chief Minster backflipped on it.
The other issue is we have to really work with the public. There are opportunities to try alternatives. I remember one of the big challenges was people going to the Motor Vehicle Registry in their lunch hour. That was the time they had off work and when the queues would really hit. That is when the criticisms started, the letters were sent to the paper, and the government became very unpopular.
Changing hours was a good initiative. The Saturday morning opening hours were discussed by the previous government. A general election got in the way of many government initiatives from the previous regime. The change to hours is good. I applaud the minister for Saturday morning openings and am sure those services will be increased in regard to the range of services offered. Once again, it will cost; it comes down to staff and infrastructure cost. As the member for Nelson said, that is what governments do; it is about customer service.
The other angle around the $20 the minister may be interested in, if he speaks to the Minister for Correctional Services, is the disproportionate rate of Indigenous Territorians who are imprisoned. You will see a correlation between 82% Indigenous prisoners represented in our system in the Northern Territory and this low-level recidivist nature of offending which often relates to offences under the Traffic Act. The minister was trying to address an issue and took very bad advice. He did not realise - I hope he explores this a little more – that whacking that fee on, or that punitive approach, has a psychological effect on people in the regional and remote areas. It might seal that decision, ‘Do not worry, I will drive unregistered or unlicensed. I will not go to the counter. I will not process what I need to process to operate in society. I do not have a credit card. I do not have access to the Internet so I will take the risk’. When they are picked up a number of times and that recidivist nature of offending catches up with them, they end up in prison. It is a real link and I encourage the Minister for Transport to consider that link next time the Renewal Management Board comes in with a punitive policy which has a compounding effect: that chain reaction that goes right down the line and can even start to impact on the prison population of the Northern Territory.
It is good to see that was overturned. It is also good to see the minister is working on MVR offices in remote areas, as the previous government was. It is good to see the minister is …
Mr Giles: You just lie!
Mr McCARTHY: Yes, whatever! You can record that on Hansard. I will pick up on that interjection because I was privileged to be the minister for Transport and what is …
Mr Giles: You did nothing. I have been through our old stuff.
Mr McCARTHY: He is directly having a slight at the public servants I worked with. The difference between this guy and me is it starts with the semantics of ‘my department, my work’. It is all about ‘me’. To be the Chief Minister, that is the line you will have to run. The people over there are looking for an alternative, so keep your hand up and that ego well and truly fuelled. Let me tell you that you can say whatever you like because the whole Transport Division of the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment knows the truth. Argue all you like, throw your insults across the Chamber.
I work with Territorians and I always will. I know the truth, and this political banter can go on as much as it likes because, once I walk out of this House, I go back into that sense of reality. When I look people in the eye, I do not have to get accolades or that ego massage. I get the quiet reaction, ‘We know the truth’.
I digress, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have been led down the garden path by a minister who is sensitive about this issue, who was done over in Cabinet, who was sold a pup out of the same litter the member for Fong Lim got his pup from in trying to deliver alcohol policy. He is, obviously, a little embarrassed, so I will read his behaviour in this House accordingly.
As the member for Nelson said, give credit where credit is due. There is work going on; it is continuing to go on with the new government. We support that. I ask the minister to look, in a little more detail, into ramifications of decision-making, particularly in the area of motor vehicle operations, the Traffic Act, the relationship it has to the disproportionate number of Indigenous Territorians who are imprisoned, and get a better understanding of what can deliver real results to Territorians, or very negative results.
That this has been overturned today is a good result. This is a story Territorians can talk about; they can acknowledge there was some humility and the Chief Minister did the backflip. They can ask, ‘What is next?’ What the Chief Minister is missing, with this real highbrow ego approach from the Country Liberal Party, is it is all about lecturing, not listening.
The Wanguri by-election was the temperature test. Before that by-election I was listening to and watching the posturing of the CLP. They talked about a marginal result. We will take that marginal result in Sanderson. We will be quite happy with that marginal result in Sanderson. We will take that marginal result in the seat of Drysdale. We would be quite happy with that marginal result the Labor candidate achieved in Wanguri. It sends a very clear message.
Mr Deputy Speaker, instead of lecturing, listening to Territorians is the way to go. Territorians will be saying, ‘Thank you, Minister for Transport, for doing the backflip. Thank you, Chief Minister, for doing the backflip on the $20 sting. How about looking at other measured and more managed increments in the price hikes you are hell-bent on imposing on hard-working Territory families?’ There is a good lesson to be learnt today that the Leader of the Opposition outlined in this House. It is up to you because you are driving the show and delivering for Territorians. The question is, what exactly are you delivering?
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister who is the first minister who has listened and responded since the by-election. This is a sound decision. He has contrasted himself brilliantly with the head-in-the-sand approach from the Chief Minister. This is a sensible decision. In his job you have to listen and sometimes change your direction and what you are doing. This is good from the minister; he has clearly advanced himself ahead of others in the team in the ability to listen to what was a resounding result on Saturday and respond with a clear-cut decision. He did not prevaricate around it. There were no meetings and no ‘possibles’, ‘I might do this, I might do that’. He has made a clear decision to change how to handle this. It was a smart thing to do. It is what you are meant to do as a politician, as a parliamentarian. He has listened and acted.
Other colleagues in his team should follow his lead and do something similar. You need to listen, particularly when people speak so clearly and loudly as happened on Saturday.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this is an excellent decision from the minister. Obviously, he did not make it alone; he has some clear sway in his party room to be able to get to this position. It is a good thing to see a minister listen and respond. Some might see it as a shameless attempt to jump some others who might be vying for honours in the government. I take it completely at face value as a smart, sensible response to a clear message from people who thought the direction the CLP was travelling in on this issue was the wrong one. He has done the right thing in changing his position on it. I thank him for doing that.
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, I speak on this today as obviously - as the minister has said and the member for Nelson has outlined - I was an advocate for reconsidering this charge. I thank the minister and my Cabinet colleagues for doing so.
It is very important to remember that decisions like this one made by our government have contributed to a significant change in customer behaviour for the benefit of all Territorians. It forms part of the reason the decision not to implement the charge has come about.
We took this issue of long wait times at the MVR to the last election. This policy was one of many put in place to address the concern of Territorians. As the minister will no doubt delve into, he took immediate steps. Within three weeks of our election we opened the Goyder Road MVR on Saturday mornings, and have seen a staggering 4031 transactions go through the MVR since opening. That is an average of 191 transactions every Saturday morning, which is astonishing. It clearly highlights the demand for MVR services.
The Minister for Transport has also significantly increased the online capacity so Territorians have the choice of not going into an MVR office, which was causing many problems in the first place. Now there are more options for registration, licence renewal, and there are the smartphone and tablet opportunities as well. These types of technologies are not for everyone, but our dedication to revitalising and enhancing online services has saved thousands of Territorians the trouble of going to an MVR office. That is really the point; it is about giving greater options to Territorians. One in five registrations are now completed online.
We have also improved our BPay. The old MVR website was very clunky and difficult to get around. We have revitalised that. We also have Australia Post options so when people who do not like online or phone services are at the Post Office they can make their payments there.
At the end of the day, the $20 fee that would have come into place in July this year saw a change in behaviour. We had a 74% increase in motor vehicle registrations and 62% increase in licence renewals online. We have also promoted the fact that you do not need to go to the MVR test shed to get your vehicle inspection. As a result of that we have seen an increase from 19 private vehicle inspections a month to 1129, which is astonishing.
The $20 over-the-counter fee was a big issue in my electorate, but it was the catalyst for a good change to MVR service delivery used by consumers. I welcome today’s announcement not to implement the fee that would have come into effect in July. I have been working very closely with the Minister for Transport, his office, and my Cabinet colleagues, to reconsider the implementation.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank my Cabinet colleagues for hearing the concerns of Palmerston residents, and I am proud to have brought this issue to the forefront of government on behalf of my constituents.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I compliment the minister responsible for this fee for having listened to arguments. What I hear from the opposition in this House is they want the government to listen. They call for that repeatedly, and say, ‘You should listen to the people and you should do this’. They are full of great advice. Sadly, of course, we have been left with almost a tragic debt level by the previous government.
I congratulate the minister for listening to the people and doing this. We heard from the other side, ‘The government is doing backflips’. I do not know whether this a backflip. I have heard people say, including the member for Barkly, who is a former teacher - I am sure he would have used words like this or similar at some stage in his teaching career when teaching people, giving them knowledge – what I was taught many years ago. I have also said when you have a certain amount of knowledge you base your decisions on the knowledge you have at the time. When you get new information and new knowledge, then you can make a different decision.
We came into government, opened up the books, and what did we find? An unmitigated disaster in relation to debt levels and projected debt levels. These are not our figures; these are the projected figures of the Labor government. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out we are going on this unsustainable debt path that will almost ruin the Northern Territory. Someone has to recover the situation the previous government left us in. Sadly, we were placed in a situation where some tough decisions had to be made.
If you get more information and think, ‘Okay, I can do this or we can do that’, and look at it and make a decision to change, then that is fine. I do not have a problem with that, because that is making a decision based on some different information. If you have the capacity to change after receiving the information, then you can change your mind. Some people do not have the capacity to change, but we have demonstrated we have that capacity.
The previous Henderson Labor government has left us in a very poor position. We have had to make some very difficult decisions. I listened to the former government lecturing us on economics, yet I wonder what their qualifications were when they were making these decisions. I wonder what information they had when they were in Cabinet making decisions. Did they listen to the advice given to them by the Power and Water people about putting prices up? Did they calculate the full prices of power and water? No, we know that. There is correspondence suggesting the government should have done a whole range of things, yet they were not done. One wonders why they did not do it. It is quite obvious; it would have been extremely unpopular. Whoever won the 2012 general election in the Northern Territory would be required to increase power prices; that is a fact. You cannot keep producing power and selling it for less than the cost of production. That is an unsustainable business case.
I look at the graphs and the financial situation of the Territory, and I see we have to get spending down to what we earn. I have had times in my life where I have been right on the edge, where I could pick the coins out of my pocket and count how much I had between then and next pay day. When you are raising kids, especially if you do it on your own - and there are so many people who are doing it tough - eventually, one has to try to cope.
Pensioners are doing it tough. There are people in my electorate who have said they are doing it tough. There are pensioners in my electorate who are saying they will have to restructure what they do and how they do it. However, the charges for power supply will go up. I do not know what the opposition’s response is to a proposal to getting the power prices up to what it costs to produce power. I hope someone on that side might say either I am wrong or I need to do more sums. I am sure someone over there will say, ‘You do not know what you are talking about’. I ask the opposition what it would have done had it won the 2012 election. Would it have left power prices where they were? Would it have continued to run Power and Water into a debt situation where it became totally unsustainable and the taxpayer might have to bail it for hundreds of millions of dollars? What would it have done? I heard the debate from the other side of this Chamber where they accused us of all types of things. They say this is terrible, but what would they have done? I have not heard them say, ‘We were leaving the power …
Mr Giles: They do not make decisions, they pay by credit card.
Mr STYLES: That is true; put it on the credit card and borrow some more money.
On their own projections, by 2016, the debt would be in excess of $5bn - a totally unsustainable situation. What would they have done about it? Just forget about it? Say to people, ‘We will keep selling power for less than it costs to produce’. You do not have to be a graduate from a business school to understand if you are selling a product well below what it is costing to produce it, at some stage someone will have to pay. If it is not the consumer, it is someone else. Who is that person ...
Mr Giles: Children.
Mr STYLES: Yes, our kids. I have children and grandchildren who live here and we are not going anywhere. This is our home and we will be here forever. I cannot pack up and say, ‘Let us leave the Territory if I have messed it up. We will pack up and go somewhere else’. I have to stay here.
When we came into government, in the discussions we had on this side of the House in our party room I was appalled at some of the things the previous government had done and the legacy it left us and my kids. The federal Treasurer, Mr Swan, about 18 months ago, said he would produce a $1bn deficit, ‘It is great and that is what we will do from now on, have deficits’.
Someone handed me a piece of paper with a figure which said it will take, at that rate, 142 years to pay off the debt they racked up in less than five years. At $1bn a year deficit they had a bit of an issue. How will we pay it off? Your great-great-great-grandchildren will still be paying off the debt they have run this country into. It is unsustainable. Debt is a millstone around anybody’s neck. It is the debt of our people in the Territory.
One of the main concerns I heard when I was doorknocking in Wanguri recently - and also doorknocking in my electorate and talking to my constituents at shopping centres every Saturday morning when I hear some of their issues - was the cost in relation to power and rent. One of these guys said, ‘The cost of my rent has gone up in the last 12 months by $125 a week, and it is about to go up again’. I asked, ‘What do you think? Why do you think that is occurring?’ We talked about land release and lack of land.
He is trying to buy a house. He cannot get into the housing market because he cannot go into an auction for land. There is a basic rule in the free market; if you have 100 people looking for a block of land and there are only 50 blocks of land available, only 50 people will get a block of land. It means you have an auction on every block of land. People keep upping the price, somebody wants to gazump somebody else, and they keep going. They keep pushing the price up. The lack of land release by the previous government drove the cost of a block of land up.
I heard this morning in this House that the price of a block of land in Bellamack went up by $1000 a week. Some of the people who are trying to buy those houses hardly earn $1000 a week ...
Mr Giles: They put it on the credit card like Labor.
Mr STYLES: That is true. I was having a conversation with this guy at one of my shopping centres, and he was saying, ‘I am struggling. I cannot buy a house and the repayments I might be making on a reasonably priced house cost more than rent’. We have this ridiculous situation where you have 100 people looking for a block, and only 50 blocks of land, because you failed to release sufficient land.
You then have those 50 people going into the housing market. What do we see here? We see 50 people competing for 10 homes. You see people living with families in two little rooms under an elevated home because they cannot afford the rent. The rents have gone through the roof.
To go back to the original part of the conversation I had with this gentleman, he said, ‘Power will go up to X number of dollars per week. Why are people not screaming about the increase in the cost of housing and rent because of the previous government’s failure to release land?’ Look at the drivers here. Why do people not have disposable income in their pockets?
I will give you another classic example of one of the businesses in my electorate. I have used this example before, but maybe those on the other side were not listening. It has to do with the humble bottle of tomato sauce. I spoke to the proprietor of this particular business. Some time ago when the ...
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I know we are allowed a fair amount of latitude, but this speech has gone for a considerable time and the motion which has been put forward has not been mentioned very much at all, except at the beginning. I understand where the member is coming from. I am not complaining about his argument, but from the point of view of relevance, we must stick reasonably close to the motion as presented today.
Mr GILES: Speaking to the point of relevance, Madam Speaker! The member for Sanderson is very well articulating cost of living pressures on people’s lives, particularly about waiting times in queues in MVR …
Mr Wood: $20 fees.
Mr GILES: That is exactly what we are talking about. I am very interested in hearing the end of his argument and seeing how he ties it all together.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Braitling. Member for Sanderson, I understand you are developing an argument, but please continue.
Mr STYLES: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I thank the member for Braitling for that point of order. Clearly, I am explaining that this government is very concerned about the legacy left to us. It is being able to look at where we can do things slightly better when we get new information and remove these charges we put in place. When you put those charges in place - I would like to quote other things that have happened in this House today - you look at the benefits of listening to what people say and, when it is in your capacity to change, then you make those changes. That is what responsible governments do. It is about listening to the people. The other side bangs on about all sorts of things and says we do not listen to people. This is a clear indication we do.
With the issue of power and water prices and other charges, sometimes it is not within the government’s capacity to keep saying, ‘We will sell power for less than it costs to produce’. You cannot do that. I ask that someone from the opposition stand up and say you can. It is a challenge; stand up and say you can continue to do these things. Governments will listen but they still have to act responsibly and keep the books in some order so we do not go broke.
Some people do not quite understand exactly how all this works. Generally, if you have a 20% overspend in your budget, it is not sustainable. If you talk to any business, you will find that businesses cannot sustain a 20% overspend. Governments cannot sustain a 20% overspend. If you keep doing that for two years, that is 40% of your budget that you have to pay back, plus some interest. That is about half. It is not rocket science. On the government’s side, we have been responsible where we have listened to people and made some changes that will suit many people.
The spin-off from this has been a 5000% - feel free to interject, minister ...
Mr Giles: 5800%.
Mr STYLES: A 5800% increase in the use of online registration …
Mr Giles: No, no. I will cover that.
Mr STYLES: The minister will cover that in his summing up. I listened and was very impressed because it has people doing what we all want to do; that is, get people online to do business. I go online to do it. It is fabulous; I do not have to go to the Motor Vehicle Registry office. Other people, as they come online, will find their time is far better spent doing these things online, going to the local library, doing a whole range of things …
Mr Giles: Buying tomato sauce?
Mr STYLES: Tomato sauce? We will go back to tomato sauce. Things are tough out there. People on the other side of the House allowed the push of prices through the roof because of their lack of land release. These are Territory families, young people trying to get a start in life.
I heard debate in this House today talking about young people getting into the market. I had a path beaten to my door by young people coming to talk to me about their inability to get a deposit together and then be able to sustain the repayments on such high prices. That is a massive hike of, in some cases, $150 per week over 12 months just on rentals. I do not know how the opposition tries to bag the government for doing some of the things we have to. We on this side do not have a choice; we have to fix the problem we inherited.
Madam Speaker, I commend the minister for listening to the people of the Northern Territory, to his Cabinet and party colleagues, and saying, ‘Perhaps we can do this a bit better’. Obviously, there have been some ways to point that out and it is within our capacity to do that. I commend the minister on withdrawing that fee.
Mr GILES (Transport): Madam Speaker, what an opportunity to say a few words. I am not sure who to thank first, the member for Sanderson or the member for Drysdale. They have been like two little rabbits gnawing on my ears about this fee, which would not start for four-and-a-half months …
Mr Wood: Now he is calling me a rabbit.
Mr GILES: Chicken whistler - a fee which would not start for four-and-a-half months, member for Nelson.
I will not go down the same avenue of anecdotes about tomato sauce in this motion, but I start by thanking the member for Nelson for bringing this motion on to the floor. I thank my colleague, the member for Drysdale who, in all seriousness, since she has come into this Chamber in her position as the member for Drysdale, has been working very tenaciously in her electorate on a range of issues, the least of which was MVR services. Her efforts have, in part, led to our position today.
Member for Sanderson, you have also been advocating very well for the people of the northern suburbs. It is a pity there are not any other members in the northern suburbs who advocate as strongly as you do, Peter. Many in the northern suburbs, across all electorates, come to you and you present those issues and concerns to our wing, and I thank you.
The motion will not be accepted by the government, member for Nelson, because it is now irrelevant as we do not have a $20 fee. We never had one, it was only intended to start in four-and-a-half months down the track. We will not be accepting the motion because, as announced today by the Chief Minister and me in Question Time, we have heard loud and clear the concerns of the community in regard to opposition to the proposed $20 fee. In light of those concerns, as well as the change in customer behaviour in the taking up of online payment options, the fee has been scrapped. While the fee was not proposed to commence until 1 July 2013, there was a massive change in customer behaviour with more and more Territorians now realising the benefits of doing their business online.
It was no secret the MVR waiting times was a key issue for Territorians at the last Territory election. When I was considering the reasons why the queues got this way and what the policy response could be to improve the situation, I was reminded the queues were a direct outcome of the previous Labor government’s failure to plan for and resource the MVR to cope with growth.
I will now step back and reflect upon some of the comments made by the member for Barkly. What he said are just flat-out lies. To say he was working on these things is an absolute joke. There were an average of 19 inspection reports per month from private inspectors faxed or e-mailed to the MVR before this announcement when I started talking up about there being no need to go to the MVR to get the inspections done; they could be done in the private sector. What did we have in January? Approximately 1200. From 19 to 1200 is an increase of 5800%. I have heard some big numbers in percentage increases, but a 5800% increase – and he tells me he was working on it. Rubbish, lies! He said he was working on WiFi for buses. They are all lies. Everything the member for Barkly said was a lie.
I appreciate what the member for Fannie Bay said. He added value to the argument and I appreciate his comments wholeheartedly. I encourage the new members for Nightcliff, Wanguri - and is the member for Johnston here? I have not heard him. Oh, there he is. Member for Johnston, I have not heard you say much, but I encourage you to take a leaf out of the member for Fannie Bay’s book who was a bit more outspoken last term and is now speaking up more and more. It is unfortunate in the last four years, though, he was a little like the member for Nhulunbuy - the ever-growing cranky member for Nhulunbuy who, in the last four years never mentioned gas to Gove. Not once! The member for Fannie Bay never spoke about the queues outside MVR in this Chamber and how much heartache it caused the people in his electorate. He must be happy now those queues are not going past all the houses in his electorate. I am sure he would be very happy; he has that wry smile on his face. He is probably thinking, ‘If only I had done more I might have been able to convince the former Transport minister to do something about MVR’.
The hard-working people at MVR processed 855 000 transactions, a 30% increase over the last few years. What happened? Nothing. That is why, since the change of government, we have a new direction we have taken trying to get people to go online and conduct their business differently, and to do inspections outside the MVR. That is why we have seen such changes since the announcement: a 74% increase in registrations and a 62% increase in licence renewals done online.
Our Saturday morning trading launched straight after the election has seen 4031 transactions averaging 191 each Saturday morning; 636 of those were vehicle inspections, averaging 30 inspections. The transactions included 348 vehicle transfers, which is 9% of transactions; 1472 licence transactions, which was 36% of transactions; 1706 registration transactions, or 42% of transactions. It is important to point out 77% of the Saturday morning transactions may have been able to be done online.
We are continuing to improve our services. We saw recently the launch of the two iPads at MVR. The member for Nelson asked if you had to line up for that. It is not heavily used; use it straightaway. We were launching it and a lady asked what is was all about. I said, ‘You can do your MVR registration online’. She walked straight up, not scripted, and we said. ‘You will be the very first customer to use it’. We showed her the screen, she typed it in. I said, ‘Use your credit card; I do not want to see your credit card’. She said, ‘I have the number in my head’. I said, ‘I will turn away’. She typed it in, did it correctly and, on the spot, got her transaction record. She said to me, ‘This is amazing. I thought I would not get out of here until 2 pm.’. It was 1.15 pm. She saved herself 45 minutes. She was ecstatic. It is a very good service.
There is a range of other reforms we are working on at the moment. I know when I announce them the member for Barkly will say they were all his ideas. Labor was in for 11 years and we have had a 30% increase in transactions over the last five years. All these stats are people waiting for hours reading War and Peace. Now you only need the NT News, member for Nelson. I thank MVR staff for being so tenacious in their efforts.
I will run through some of the things we are working on. There is an MVR application for smartphones and tablets so you can have your application on your new technology. That is being worked on at the moment. There is an improved call centre service. I note you spoke about the call centre service and someone ringing up. I can tell you how the call centre service works because I was there recently. The staff are all rostered to take phone calls. When it gets very busy at the front counter they relieve. By reducing the pressure on the front counter there are more options to be on the phones. That is how that service is improving. They told me how the response time in answering calls has gone down substantially since those online transactions have changed.
We are close to finalising our Australia Post payment option. We are removing light vehicle registration labels which will save the Territory government $100 000 a year. Removing the registration labels is a model which follows what has been done interstate in places like Western Australia and Tasmania. In New South Wales it changed on 1 January 2013. It will be continuing into the Australia Capital Territory on 1 July 2013. There is a whole range of reforms in that area.
There are driver’s licence reforms. We are looking at changing the frame of when you have to renew your licence. We are also looking at the balance of ensuring road safety and the requirement and testing period for eyesight tests so you will not have to go into MVR as much. It is not about scrapping things that are necessary, but about getting the balance right. That is something we are working on. There is a whole range of areas I could go through to talk about how things have improved.
I have reflected on the performance of the staff at the MVR. I thank those staff for the fantastic work they do. I also thank the staff at the Department of Transport for their efforts. It seems every day I am asking the Department of Transport to do something new, something inventive, and they are hugely responsive.
I go back to that issue about the WiFi on the buses. The member for Barkly said it was all his idea. The fact is two buses were driving around with WiFi-enabled capability for the last two years that were not enabled. I said I want WiFi on the buses. They bent over backwards to get WiFi on the buses, and not just two. There are now five operating in Darwin, three bus interchanges, five more to start in Alice Springs next month, and five more to start in Darwin next month. There will be 15 buses. There are 70 on the network in the Top End. Depending on the time frames to implement it, by around the middle of next March, 10 of those will have WiFi capabilities. People have been very quick to ring the ABC and criticise WiFi. People are saying - including the member for Nelson - ‘How many people can use WiFi when you are a senior paying $1 a fare, travelling from Humpty Doo?’ Let me just give some test data.
In the first three-and-a-half days, when people like the member for Nelson and all the Labor trolls who are on the social media sites were criticising, 1500 people connected to and used WiFi. You tell me those 1500 ...
Mr Wood: Did they talk to one another?
Mr GILES: They were not 1500 individual people, I presume; that is 1500 connections. Those people have had the opportunity to have better service on public transport. That will continue to grow. As we increase the services on the buses it will be a modernisation of our fleet and a complete improvement and massive overhaul of the public transport system in the first five-and-a-half months of this new government. Then there is the MVR and the improvements we are making to taxis and CPVs. There is a whole range of initiatives.
The member for Barkly said he was working on MVRs in the bush. Well, it was four years, and not one thing happened. I have gone through the department; there was nothing happening. That was a blatant lie, misleading on the floor of this Chamber. He did not say a thing. To come in here and lie like that! That is why I told the House today that I am working on five sites for MVRs in the bush. I will not rush it so we make a mistake. When we get the model right, it will be brought in. I stand by my convictions; it will happen. The buses have happened, the MVRs have happened. Transactions are going through the roof with, as I said, a 5800% increase. That 5800% is just amazing!
I sell the message again. If you do not need to go to the MVR to get an inspection, do not go. Go to the private sector - the same price, ease of service, and does not takes time off you and your family. For working families, it is a great opportunity.
I will not continue talking about this, but will finish by commenting on another completely ludicrous comment made by the member for Barkly when he spoke about Indigenous Territorians in prison. He was talking about something to do with transport. You tend to lose your way in listening to that fellow. He seems to be getting worse every day. It seems as if the intelligence of the House goes down every time he speaks, but that is another point.
Much of the issue of Indigenous Territorians in prison relates to traffic. The sad fact is, when he was the Transport minister and the Corrections minister, his government put more Aboriginal people in gaol than they housed under SIHIP, the Indigenous program. If he wants to challenge me to a debate on that, I will take him on. He is the bloke who spent $1.8bn – and has left it with us - on a new prison. Of $1.8bn, SIHIP has fewer people than his prison. If anyone should be hanging their heads in shame, it is him. He misleads the Chamber then comes out with stories like that. I am happy to take that debate on as a challenge.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for fighting for this issue. We will not be supporting the motion. It is not needed because the Country Liberal government has fixed it by completely overhauling and reforming the way MVR services are carried out. I thank the MVR staff. I again thank you for bringing this motion to the floor of this Chamber.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank all the speakers for their contribution to the debate. The comment I made about the WiFi was a bit of a dig because you had just got rid of the free bus fares. Pensioners can get on the bus for $1; they can now take their tablet, as you said, and do all their MVR work on the bus. That is a great idea …
Mr Giles: It is a seamless service.
Mr WOOD: I knew that is what you were trying to do all the time; it was only a dig. I am only learning about WiFi. I am old-fashioned; I would rather people talked in the buses. I have trouble when people go past with two ear plugs in. You might as well have gone past a robot. Sadly, with some of the technology we have today we are losing communication between each other which is a negative. I like to talk to people on public transport. I do not use the buses much in my area, but when I go down south I like to talk to people. That was only a dig about that issue.
Minister, you will not answer now, but you talked about not having registration stickers. I wonder how it is in Victoria. I am pretty sure you do not have to take your vehicle over the pits ...
Mr Giles: No, you do not.
Mr WOOD: It might be something worth looking at ...
Mr Giles: Already looking at it, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: Yes? I do not remember my father ever taking his car over the pits. Not having to take your vehicle over the pits would reduce the cost of living. On the other side, there are good safety reasons for having an inspection of your car every so many years. I raise that because the minister was using this debate to sum up on many of the good things he has been putting forward in relation to changes at the MVR. I thank the minister for using this debate to give us an update of what is happening at MVR. It is good he has responded in that way.
In summarising, regardless of whether there are people saying because there was a $20 fee for people renewing their licence at MVR, all of a sudden, people changed to going online, the point is you were using a punitive method that swept up everyone - those who could go online and those who could not - as a means of injecting more efficiency within MVR. That was the wrong approach. With good advertising and promotion, as with anything the government normally does, you could have achieved the same outcomes.
I am one of those who is slow off the mark when it comes to IT. Our man who looks after the computers is often in my office trying to repair what I have mucked up ...
Mr Elferink: That is not a cup holder, when you press the button and a little thing slides out; put a DVD in it next time.
Mr WOOD: All right. I pay some of my bills over the phone and through the Internet and have purchased things on the Internet. There are some people who cannot do that. They were the ones who were being punished for a concept that, rightly, the government was looking at implementing, which is getting more people online to reduce the queues. What the government was doing was good; the problem was the method they were using to achieve it. The end does not always justify the means.
Mr Deputy Speaker, once again, I thank the minister for changing the government’s mind on this issue. I thank the member for Drysdale for her efforts and support. I thank the people on this side who supported the motion, originally. As the Minister for Transport said, this motion is now redundant because the government has moved to scrap the law. I will not be taking any vote on this motion, thank you.
Motion negatived.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that
(a) the government stops the planned and forced move of Tourism NT staff to Alice Springs until they have conducted extensive consultation with the tourism industry; and
(b) before any political decision is made to force Tourism staff to Alice Springs a fully costed relocation report is tabled to this House for consideration.
The forced moved of the Tourism NT office headquarters to Alice Springs is well and truly under way. In fact, the opening of the office is expected in March; it is nearly a month late as the minister had announced it would be open in the first week of February. Just because the Country Liberal Party forced this decision upon Territorians with no evidence or mandate to do so from the tourism industry, does not mean it will escape criticism or review from this Chamber.
As opposition, we hold the government to account and, as shadow minster for Tourism, that is exactly what I will do. Governments make decisions every day about priorities, investing or cutting; prioritising or deeming initiatives not important; and keeping or scrapping government policies. In many of these decisions the reason behind them can fall into some key categories, and these are: evidence in research or what the experts are telling us; financial considerations; or politics. If we look at minister Conlan’s decision to move the Tourism NT headquarters from Darwin to Alice Springs through this prism it becomes very clear what this decision is all about.
First, was this decision based on evidence or research or what the experts were saying? The Country Liberal Party had many opportunities to outline their policies and plans before the election. On 25 July, before the election, the CLP released a two-page Tourism policy which made no mention of the plan to move the Tourism headquarters from Darwin to Alice Springs. There was not a single promise or mention within the Country Liberal Party election policy. Yet, without a mandate, a month-and-a-half later on 7 September, the minister for Tourism made the abrupt announcement on ABC radio before he even told his Tourism department.
Before, during, or after the election, minister Conlan has never produced any evidence or research to say that moving the Tourism department headquarters from Darwin to Alice Springs will increase tourist visitor numbers to all of the Territory ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! It is only a wee thing, but it is tradition to refer to members by their electorates, not their pronouns.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Johnston.
Mr VOWLES: Thank you, member for Port Darwin. I will do my best.
If we can establish this decision was not based on any evidence or research provided by the Northern Territory CLP government, perhaps it is based on practices by interstate counterparts. Let us look at the rest of the country when it comes to their tourism headquarters: South Australian Tourism Commission’s location of head office – Adelaide; Destination NSW’s location of head office – Sydney; Tourism Victoria’s location of head office – Melbourne; Tourism and Events Queensland’s location of head office – Brisbane; Tourism Tasmania’s location of head office – Hobart; and finally, Australian Capital Tourism’s location of head office - Canberra.
Looking at this list, it is apparent that this decision to take the headquarters for Tourism NT out of the capital city of the Territory defies logic. It is the equivalent of taking New South Wales tourism headquarters out of Sydney and moving it to Newcastle, the head office of Victoria and moving it to Geelong, or moving the head office of Adelaide and putting it in Mount Gambier ...
Mr Conlan: Or Coober Pedy
Mr VOWLES: Coober Pedy is a great place.
If the member for Greatorex did not base his decisions on research, a mandate in the Tourism policy before the election, or the practice of other states, perhaps he based his decision on talking to his tourism industry. We know that did not happen. I believe the experts of the tourism industry are the operators, those at the coalface. I understand that not a single tourism operator was consulted about this decision.
On the same day of the announcement by the member for Greatorex, Tourism Top End commented in the media that it did not believe relocating Tourism NT to Alice Springs would improve the tourism situation in Central Australia. It also had concerns in relation to recruiting and retaining tourism staff if it was based in Alice Springs.
The same day, the ABC also reported on the announcement, and I read from their report:
He is right. The tourism industry, the experts, were not consulted and many were opposed to the idea because it simply did not make sense.
As shadow minister, I took the time to let tourism operators know what was going on, and was overwhelmed by the response from tourism businesses across the Northern Territory. I will read an extract of one of the many responses I received when I e-mailed tourism businesses and operators:
She went on to say:
These are not my words but the words of someone deep in the industry and knowledgeable of the industry - one of the many people the member for Greatorex took no time to consult on a very important decision.
Another tourism operator was on the ABC radio on 27 September talking about the move. Due to lack of information from the CLP, of her own volition, she took the time to get in touch with tourism operators and survey them on the decision. About 75% to 80 % of tour operators did not agree with the decision to move Tourism NT to Alice Springs. The CLP made no attempt to talk to industry, which is appalling. It seems to be the way the member for Greatorex and this government operates.
This current CLP government does not need to listen to me or the tourism industry about why this decision does not make sense, it can turn to its CLP forefathers. In mid-1992, the then CLP government, under the leadership of Chief Minister Marshall Perron and then Tourism Minister Roger Vale, moved the headquarters, which were in Alice Springs, to Darwin. This followed release of a report, Review of the Northern Territory Tourist Commission, prepared by Jim Kennedy. The CLP government in 1992 knew it was a tough decision to move headquarters from Alice Springs to Darwin, but they knew it was the right decision. They relied on the evidence, research, and advice from an expert to base their decisions. Mr Jim Kennedy, at the time, was known as - and I quote from the NT News - ‘Australia’s best credentialed tourism expert’. He provided a report to the CLP government which gave them the evidence and advice they needed to make the right decision.
Mr Kennedy’s report spoke specifically about where the head office for the Northern Territory Tourist Commission should be. I quote directly from the report the CLP based their decision on:
Mr Kennedy went on to say in his report:
This CLP government is becoming more and more ridiculous as each day goes by. Tourism headquarters in Alice Springs has all been done before. It was the CLP government that saw the error of its ways and made the right decision based on an independent report’s advice to base the headquarters for tourism in the capital city of Darwin.
We can safely conclude the decision was not based on evidence, research, consultation with the tourism industry or even the wisdom of past decisions of CLP governments. Was the reasons for this decision based on financial considerations? I am very keen to hear from the member for Greatorex that this decision is saving money. Unfortunately, though, to date the CLP has not provided any detail on the financial cost of this move. There was certainly no cost analysis provided at the time of the decision.
The ABC reported on 4 December that the mini-budget has not provided any further details on the department of Tourism’s move to Alice Springs. The government has committed $0.25m to setting up the new Northern Territory Tourism Commission in Alice Springs, but there has been a lack of information on the department’s move to Central Australia, with the Tourism budget remaining relatively unchanged. No information has been provided about how much the move will cost, or how many jobs were cut or redeployed to Alice Springs.
With the member for Greatorex and the CLP still silent on the financial burden of the move, let us explore what we think the cost might be. Last year at the end of September, the union representing Tourism NT workers, CPSU, conducted a survey amongst their Tourism NT members. At the time, 95 staff were at Tourism NT. The CPSU’s question was, ‘If you were offered a position in Alice Springs under the present conditions, would you accept it?’ The results were 60 people said no, only five responded yes.
I applaud the member for Greatorex’s decision to not have any forced redundancy as a result of moving the department. It is the right decision. However, if only five employees in September said they were willing to move to Alice Springs, that means a lot of advertising for positions. It is about time the member for Greatorex came clean with a fully costed relocation report. I hope he is tabling it in this House tonight. Surely, he has had time to prepare, with his motion having been on the Notice Paper since last year.
Off the top of my head, these are just a few of the costs involved: money will be spent on relocating whoever does choose to move, including flights, removalists, transporting people’s entire home and contents from Darwin to Alice Springs; money spent advertising the vacant positions in Alice Springs; money spent redeploying those not moving to other areas of the public service; the cost of duplication of infrastructure or personnel in Alice Springs and Darwin; the ongoing cost of flying Tourism NT staff between Darwin and Alice Springs for matters that cannot be dealt with using multimedia; and the complete fit-out and transformation of Jalistan House to include new walls, lights, paint, carpet, computers, photocopiers and everything else you need to run an office. It is obvious to me the relocation of department headquarters some 1500 km across Australia is not a cheap exercise, because the member for Greatorex has failed to release any figures to date on the cost.
If this spending is all coming from within Tourism NT’s current budget, it means less spending on marketing strategies and campaigns to get tourists into the NT. After this exercise of moving Tourism NT, it will not have brought a single extra tourism dollar into the Northern Territory.
This decision is coming with more than a financial cost to the Territory. Good people are leaving the department. We are losing expert knowledge in tourism as they either go to other departments or leave the public service altogether. With no mandate to do so, the CLP asked employees and their families to completely uproot their homes and lives in Darwin, and whether they wanted to continue working for Tourism NT. Tourism NT is in peril as years of tourism knowledge is being lost. A lack of job security is one of the biggest causes of stress for working families. This decision is forcing fantastic employees to turn their backs on Tourism NT as they search for secure jobs elsewhere. We can safely say this decision has not been based on financial considerations; rather, it is a decision with substantial financial and tourism knowledge loss.
Finally, what is the CLP’s decision to move the tourism headquarters to Alice Springs really about? I believe it is purely politics. This decision is about giving the members of the Alice Springs caucus what they want. The numbers on that side of the House are so perilous that the Chief Minister can only roll over to the demands of its Alice Springs caucus even if it is at the expense of all logic, all the people of Darwin and the Northern Territory.
The member for Greatorex is only interested in doing everything he possibly can for Alice Springs and is anti-Darwin. Let us face it, if the member for Greatorex could move this House of parliament to Alice Springs today, he would have a crack at it. It is quite obvious when you read the member for Greatorex’s first speech in parliament as a new minister, his priority was to govern for the people of Alice Springs.
He said:
He went on to say:
I quote from the Centralian Advocate article on Friday, 23 November:
Moving government departments should be based on evidence that products and services can be delivered better, because of cost savings or proof that it will significantly help the department to achieve its core aims. What minister in their right mind moves tourism headquarters away from its capital city because they want to make a mall look better or give local residents a psychological lift? This is not a good use of taxpayers’ money or a good reason to uproot the lives of employees and their families.
The member for Greatorex is using taxpayers’ money meant for increasing tourism spending in the Northern Territory economy. I cannot emphasise enough that this money must be used wisely. In the Treasurer’s media release of 19 December, she said:
Does that sound very nice? I am genuinely happy for those people who have decided to settle in Alice Springs. I used to live there; it is a great and beautiful place. However, you do not get people into a town by stealth. You do not move government department headquarters because you want to increase your population. It should only be done because it will significantly help the department achieve its core aim: to attract tourists into the NT.
There have been other signs that the member for Greatorex is anti-Darwin. Since coming into government, the member for Greatorex and his CLP colleagues have overseen threats to the continuation of Darwin events: the Beer Can Regatta and the Greek Glenti; cuts to the iconic museum; scrapping future Super League Rugby Union events in Darwin; and we cannot forget his shameful scrapping of the event that generates $10m into the NT economy, the Arafura Games.
The fact is the member for Greatorex has focused on all things Alice Springs. He has managed to secure more flights for Yulara and Alice Springs whilst Darwin flights have been cut.
Another reason I am led to believe this decision is purely political is the swapping of CEOs we have made with Tasmania. The former CEO, John Fitzgerald, was very well respected and was doing amazing things for the Territory. Whilst I welcome the new head of Tourism NT, I do not welcome his undertaking dual roles as CEO of Tourism and head of the Chief Minister’s Department in Alice Springs. I hope we get the better end of the stick.
When you look at publicly available statistics, it makes you wonder if all this politics is really for the benefit of the Tourism industry. I will quickly run through a couple of statistics. In 2011-12, total visitors under John Fitzgerald were up 8% and in Tourism Tasmania under Tony Mayell they were down 4%; interstate visitors up 13% under John Fitzgerald and in Tasmania under Tony Mayell as CEO down 5%; visitor expenditure under John Fitzgerald up 4.8% and Tourism Tasmania under Tony Mayell down 12%; holiday visitors up 0.4% in the NT and Tourism Tasmania down by 9%; and holiday expenditure in the NT up 1.4% and Tourism Tasmania under Tony Mayell minus 15%. I have spoken with so many tourism operators who really have immense praise for the former CEO John Fitzgerald. I wish him every success in his new role as the new Tourism CEO in Tasmania.
There is one aspect that shows how political this decision is; that is, a lack of costings that have been provided to date. The CLP government received a message loud and clear last Saturday that their drastic price hikes to the cost of living were hurting Territorians. The CLP keeps blaming the former Labor government for the pain they are causing Territorians, but many Territorians can see through this CLP lie. No doubt, many Territorians in Wanguri told the Chief Minister and this government on Saturday they do not believe them anymore.
Many Territorians do not believe the CLP blame game because they can see the CLP still has money to throw around while Territorians are suffering. They still had money to pay consultants nearly $1m for six months work along with paying their rent, food and every other bill they were racking up. When all this is revealed they will still manage to find millions of dollars to move a department headquarters, based on no research or evidence, while they are hitting Territorians hard with the cost of living.
I have no doubt the reason we have not heard from the government about the cost of this decision is because Territorians will balk at this waste of money at their expense. No one is denying Central Australia is an integral part of the tourism industry and we want tourism to do better in Alice Springs, but it simply does not make sense to move a department headquarters from the capital city. There have been no announcements of what financial benefits, if any, this decision would have in bringing more tourism visitors to the Northern Territory, thereby increasing the tourism visitor spending in the Territory economy.
The Chief Minister is rolling over to the demands of his CLP Alice Springs caucus members because, let us face it, he needs every vote he can get. This decision is pure politics. It was a CLP government that moved the office from Alice Springs to Darwin because it was the right thing to do, based on expert advice. The CLP, to date, has not provided any details of the financial cost to reverse that decision in 1992.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the motion to the House.
Mr CONLAN (Tourism and Major Events): Mr Deputy Speaker - are you okay?
Mr McCarthy: Yes, would you like to hear me?
Mr CONLAN: No, I will speak now, get this over with, and make it as painless as possible.
For someone who had six months to prepare a speech, that was pretty ordinary. He had six months to get that organised. I know Peter Wellings normally writes your speeches but that was far too undergraduate for Peter’s work; it must have been your own handiwork. It had the member for Johnston all the way through it.
The member for Johnston talked about evidence. He based his whole argument on not only a six-month-old motion, but evidence compiled by the Kennedy report 20 years ago. The evidence of 1992 is a vastly different landscape to 2013.
That aside, I will address some of the issues in the motion. The transition to Alice Springs was driven by a professional change management plan to effect a very smooth transition, and that is exactly what has taken place. The Alice Springs headquarters of Tourism NT is now operational and is currently housed within the Peter Sitzler building. There have been no forced moves, no forced redundancies, and no sackings.
The member for Johnson alluded to the CPSU. I am sure he is a member of the CPSU; he may well follow in Kay Densley’s steps when she steps down because he has the same wit as Kay Densley.
This is a memo the CPSU NT Regional Director issued on 24 September, again about six months ago. It is in a question and answer format:
As you can see, there are some parallels between the argument of the member for Johnston and the Regional Director of the CPSU. These are the lies, muckraking and hysteria being spread by the CPSU, lifted from this and placed into the member for Johnston’s speech - written by him because it does not have any of the handiwork of that eminent writer or scribe, Peter Wellings, who is pretty good at this.
The answer written in question and answer form by the CPSU.
This was the hysteria being spread by the CPSU six months ago. This motion came to the House about six months ago and is largely outdated and irrelevant.
The Alice Springs HQ is now operating and is currently housed within the Peter Sitzler building. Tony Mayell, the new Chief Executive Officer of Tourism NT, officially started in Alice Springs on 3 December 2012. He is a long-term Territorian and has been part of the Territory landscape for nearly 55 years. Adam Coward, Executive Director of Marketing, has voluntarily relocated to Alice Springs. He saw an opportunity, jumped at it, and started there on 29 January. A number of staff decided to take up the option and move to Alice Springs. It is not such a bad place.
We know it is a Labor thing to hate Alice Springs. They do not like it; they cannot stand it. It is not a bad place, after all; plenty of staff presented with those options decided to move. Other key positions in Alice Springs are being recruited locally, and there are plenty more relocations from Darwin to Alice Springs to come.
Growing tourism and the tourism industry is a major part of this government’s plan to expand our economy and build a bigger, better and prosperous Northern Territory. We do not shy away from investing in tourism or investing in and growing regional areas like Alice Springs. We need to do it. We saw the call and the opportunity to grow the regions and give the regions a bit of clout.
It is anticipated the transition of all agency functions and resources will be completed by the end of June this year. This will include moving Alice Springs headquarters into Jalistan House, which occupies a prime site in the Todd Mall in the centre of town. It will also incorporate the new Visitor Information Centre operated by Tourism Central Australia. It is a wonderful position in prime retail space in the CBD. It will go a long way to revitalising the CBD of Alice Springs - a much-needed revitalisation. Couple that with the roadworks going on with opening up the top end of the Todd Mall; it will become an absolute hub for tourists and businesses alike once all this is finally completed.
The current Visitor Information Centre is in a less than ideal site on Gregory Terrace. That will cease being a visitor centre, but will still remain an administration hub for Tourism Central Australia. Having a strong tourism presence in the CBD will transform the centre of Alice Springs. Timing of the move to Jalistan House will be worked through to align with the completion of works by the Alice Springs Town Council in Parsons Street.
Final costs of the relocation of Tourism NT’s head office are still being determined because some tender responses planned for the new HQ building have not yet been received. Costs will also be impacted by the level of support provided to staff who choose to relocate to Alice Springs - as I said, those who have chosen to move to Alice Springs, not forced to move to Alice Springs or be sacked. This will be worked through with staff members on an individual basis. Final staff numbers in Alice Springs will be known by the end of June this year.
Costs are expected to be available at the Estimates Committee hearings, member for Johnston, so you have plenty of time to work on your questions for estimates, although if this speech is indicative of the sort of work you do in six months - God help us with what another four month's work will be like come estimates.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Tourism NT will retain a significant presence in Darwin, as well as maintaining appropriate resources in Sydney to work directly with major southern source markets. The transition to Alice Springs continues to evolve smoothly, and there has been no impact on the agency’s activities and service delivery.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the motion before the House. It is logical, measured, and is asking some really good questions. The minister for Tourism has chosen to avoid the real essence of this motion: that the government stop the planned forced move of Tourism NT staff to Alice Springs until they have conducted extensive consultation with the tourism industry. It is logical; it makes sense. It is, once again, an example of a government listening to Territorians, not lecturing Territorians.
The minister has been quite dogmatic in his explanation that this is good because he says this is good; this will happen because he says this will happen. He has not talked about consultation with the industry, so the shadow member who looks after the Tourism portfolio has done the consultation, and there are some very real concerns. It is a logical request that the government look into this forced moved. The holier-than-thou minister is telling the department, ‘You will do this, it will be good for you and you will realise that in time’.
I was very interested in the minister’s language around ‘chosen to move to Alice Springs’. That is an interesting way to phrase a forced move, ‘People chose to move to Alice Springs’. Well, let us hear about it. Let us talk about how and why they chose to move to Alice Springs, minister. Are there some incentives, for instance? How did you conduct what you are saying is a good regionalisation policy and plan? How did people pick up on your ideas and agree that a move to Alice Springs was the best thing? I live in Tennant Creek and I would like to know, minister, what incentives you can apply where people will go with you, take up your offer, move their families and relocate to a new town and a new community? That is important information. You do not need to cut it short and leave us wondering and guessing. Give some more information. Tell us about the incentive package and give the modelling on that. Give the dollar figure around how it was conducted.
The member for Johnston, the shadow minister for Tourism, said in the second part of the motion before the House, ‘before any political decision is made to force Tourism staff to Alice Springs, a fully costed relocation report is tabled in this House for consideration’. That is fair and logical. The government is lecturing Territorians on economics, telling Territorians what is good for them and what they have to do.
Let us look at the economic modelling of this move from Darwin to Alice Springs. The shadow minister for Tourism did his research in this area. In his speech there were some good anecdotal comments he recorded during his research which were directly from tourism operators. One I picked up was that travel costs between Darwin and Alice Springs are extremely high and senior staff would be taking these flights regularly. Another comment said it has been tried previously and did not work.
If the minister for Tourism wants to do a bit of research, there are some contemporary examples of where the department has been relocated to Alice Springs and what occurred with those travel costs where public sector employees needed to do much more travelling to conduct business. I remember, as a lay person, seeing those officers travelling back and forward. I saw in Alice Springs Airport, for instance, people I knew who lived in Darwin and could not relocate because they had family commitments; they had established their families in Darwin. They chose to do more extensive travel between the two destinations of Darwin and Alice Springs. It was time consuming and cost a great deal. It probably detracted from their efficiency in being able to perform their duties. This has happened before in the Territory. There were outcomes recorded and those decisions were reversed.
The shadow minister for Tourism, the member for Johnston, is asking for two very logical procedures that you, as the minister, should engage in to tell this story as it is.
I also note in the shadow minister’s speech he took time to let tourism operators know what was going on and was overwhelmed by the response from tourism businesses across the Northern Territory. It was important that he took the time, a logical way to research, and explored and deconstructed what the minister brought forward as a strategy. It seemed to happen so fast that it is safe to say the minister did not take any time at all. He was determined to deliver a big headline for Alice Springs, and good luck to him.
Nobody disagrees with regionalisation or that Alice Springs is not a good town, an iconic part of the Territory. But the shadow minister for Tourism is saying maybe this decision was not based on good modelling or good research; it was rushed. The motion before the House says stop the bus, let us look at this very carefully before it has progressed any further and there are dire consequences for tourism in the Northern Territory in relation to staffing, budgets, relocation packages and incentives that the minister would do well to outline for the House when he mentions employees who chose to relocate to Alice Springs.
As there is an opportunity to talk about tourism, I ask in this debate, what about Tennant Creek? The minister for Tourism travels extensively between Alice Springs and Darwin and he would regularly see Tennant Creek from about 23 000 feet. I want to know what this move is doing for Tennant Creek and the Barkly. The minister might like to drop in some time and talk to us in Tennant Creek because an issue has developed around two of our iconic tourist points when the Tennant Creek Foundation folded as a result of the CLP government refusing to extend the funding for an additional allocation that was needed.
I will explain it for members who are interested. We have two iconic tourist destinations in Tennant Creek. Our bid is pretty simple; we just want to hold the tourists for a night. For two nights would be even better, but if we can hold the tourists for a night then they spend the day looking at Tennant Creek and our tourist attractions and spend the night contributing to our economy in our business sector. The following day, they fuel up, buy their stores, and move on to the next destination. We are not asking for much.
Under the previous government we looked at the Nyinkka Nyunyu Cultural Centre and at the Battery Hill Mining Centre. We said they are the two iconic jewels that could achieve this objective of getting tourists to stay the night in Tennant Creek. Those two businesses were operating in isolation but reflected a fantastic tourism experience for visitors to Tennant Creek, because not only did they get the cultural background, tour, and interpretation of the first Australians, they also got the iconic mining history of Tennant Creek.
These two facilities needed a business plan. They needed to look at a coordinated approach to working together. They needed a business model. That was delivered by the previous Labor government by creating the Tennant Creek Foundation. These things cost money, there is no doubt about it. This minister is talking about the regions and this move being a good initiative for the regions. I challenge him to come to Tennant Creek and have a look at our iconic tourist attractions and what has happened since the Minister for Regional Development, the member for Namatjira, decided there would be no more additional funding to get that Tennant Creek Foundation over the line and to cement it as a good business model, as the previous Labor government was doing. It was obviously done in spite because the whole plan was to try to support an area that is having a go.
We are struggling in the tourism stakes. We have iconic areas around us with the creation, under the Labor government, of the Davenport National Park, the Limmen River National Park, the Limmen Marine Park, the Indigenous ranger programs, and the incredible joint management of parks policy. We have created a track right through the Barkly, but we want people to stop in Tennant Creek for a night.
The Tennant Foundation was funded by the Labor government, and there was no doubt it had some challenges. Lobbying the previous minister, I was able to achieve some extra funding that would give the Tennant Creek Foundation that opportunity to grow its roots and cement its position; to create the business model we needed for these two iconic tourist facilities. We recruited, most recently, a very good CEO who was working tirelessly to build this model. Unfortunately, when the CLP government came to town they said no additional funding, ‘There is no more; you are on the bones of what you have’. It was the lecture they give the Territory: tighten your belt, work harder and make do with what you have. This is in a struggling regional area. Therefore, the Tennant Creek Foundation Board decided it was too risky as they did not have government support. The government had walked away from them and Tennant Creek and, therefore, they decided to wind up.
We now have the two tourist icons with a possibility of really creating that economic base for Tennant Creek in tourism which is isolated and struggling. Luckily, Julalikari Council Aboriginal Corporation has taken over Nyinkka Nyunyu again and is doing the best it can.
The Battery Hill Mining Centre is out on a limb. We will need strong community action to keep it going and keep the tourist attraction for Tennant Creek. We are talking significant attractions with O’Loughlin’s mineral collection – world-renowned - Battery Hill, the underground mining tours and the explanation, the story telling, and the orientation around Tennant Creek’s incredible mining history. They are out on a limb now and really struggling.
I have spoken to the Minister for Correctional Services in this House about really getting that link with the Barkly work camp. We could do more there in giving prisoners opportunities in training to employment and trying to use alternative solutions to help the Battery Hill Mining Centre. I hope the Minister for Correctional Services takes me up on that. I will continue to lobby for that.
Also housed in the Battery Hill Mining Museum facility is our Tourist Information Officer. We are not quite sure what the future holds for that officer. The minister will be able to take the heat out of this. This person is a long-term Territorian and Tennant Creek identity. We need to know that position is secure, will be supported, and will continue to be the bottom line in tourist information in the iconic Battery Hill Mining Centre.
There is another opportunity for Tennant Creek, the work the previous minister for Resources did with the Prospector’s Association ...
Mrs LAMBLEY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. One of the members across there has a sign in front of his desk which is not acceptable in parliament. It is not appropriate.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we have that sign removed? Madam Speaker mentioned this before. I do not want to see that again.
Mr McCARTHY: Mr Deputy Speaker, I will talk about what the previous minister for Resources did for Tennant Creek by not only supporting the exploration programs that will deliver our next mining boom, but working with the Prospector’s Association of the Northern Territory creating opportunities for Tennant Creek to, once again, promote its mining culture and history.
There are great examples around the country of where these fossickers, these amateur prospectors, come en masse into small regional remote towns. They come in their caravans with their rigs and metal detectors and they go and fossick. They explore country looking for their fortune. It is a really good grassroots initiative which brings people to small towns such as Tennant Creek. When these people come they need good, accurate information. The pastoralists support that; they do not want people wandering everywhere. The mining tenements and those mining leases need to be identified, and they also need that friendly orientation about the town and the services Tennant Creek offers.
The Tourist Information Officer at the Battery Hill Mining Centre, the ideal place, is the ideal person to be able to build this new opportunity in tourism for Tennant Creek. Minister, we really need to know that position is supported and safe. We have already been a victim of some savage cuts that were mean-spirited and showed no real drive to build the regions. It was pretty straightforward when the letter came through. It said it was all over, with no more additional support, therefore, do it on our own. That was the sentiment.
Minister, you have some good questions to answer. We would like you to come to Tennant Creek to show you what is happening. I believe you will be there on the weekend. It would be good if you talk to a few locals, search out these opportunities I have been talking about, and hear first-hand, because you will be visiting Tennant Creek on the weekend for your Central Council meeting.
Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to talk about Tennant Creek and the Barkly, regional initiatives, and how things can be done properly in a measured and appropriate way.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I respond to the motion put forward by the member for Johnston by first stating we, on this side of the Chamber, do not support this motion. Reading between the lines, it is quite a hideous motion. From what I have just heard from the member for Barkly, he does not sound particularly convinced by it either.
The motion is that:
Reading between the lines, I am hearing from the opposition what is not a story about tourism particularly, but about their objection to anything positive happening to Alice Springs. Anyone listening tonight would catch on to that very quickly. This Darwin-centric, egocentric former Labor government, now the opposition, has always had a problem with that place south of the Berrimah Line, 1500 km down the road. That place called Alice Springs is a thorn in their side forever. This motion is simply a statement about their dread, loathing, and antipathy towards the town of Alice Springs.
I take it as a great insult, being the member for Araluen, a long-term resident of Alice Springs. It is plain to see the opposition is still on about how terrible Alice Springs is and is intent on ensuring nothing positive happens in resources and stimulating the economy and wellbeing of people in Alice Springs.
I see this is a particularly narrow-minded, bigoted, parochial type of motion to put forward. It did not fool anyone, member for Johnston. It is bordering on quite disgusting that this type of motion is brought forward in this parliament. This is the Northern Territory parliament, for all Territorians. It is not just about Darwin. We all love and adore Darwin. I absolutely adore spending time here although I am away from my family. I can see this is the capital city of the Territory, the gateway to Asia. It is a wonderful city and there are some wonderful people who live here. We are all committed to making sure Darwin expands and continues to be the beautiful city it has become.
However, there is more to the Northern Territory than Darwin. This group of people across the other side of the room does not like to look beyond the city boundaries of Darwin. They were reminded of their narrow-mindedness on 25 August last year. Apart from the members for Barkly and Nhulunbuy, there was no support for Labor outside of Darwin.
Darwin people have been well looked after and well catered for by the former Labor government, now in opposition. They still have some strong connections to the people of Darwin which was illustrated finely on the weekend. We have been reminded of that. There is not much support outside of Darwin for this dismal excuse called the Labor Party. Making statements like this on the floor of the parliament is adding salt to the wound. It is a reminder for all Territorians that the former Labor government never stood for anywhere outside of Darwin and never will. They are not interested in the regions or in trying to make things happen outside of Darwin.
For the benefit of the people on the other side of the room, the tourism industry is a very significant industry throughout the Northern Territory, not just in Darwin. One of the main reasons why we, as the new government, made this decision to regionalise the tourism industry – regionalisation is a concept not familiar to the former Labor government, the opposition - is because we could see that tourism is an essential part of the economy, not just in Darwin but throughout the Northern Territory.
The member for Barkly made that point; tourism is essential to the economy of his town of Tennant Creek, not just in Darwin. A place as small as Tennant Creek relies on the tourism industry for its wellbeing, as we do in Alice Springs. Alice Springs is the second largest and most important centre in the Territory and tourism in Alice Springs is our No 1 industry.
The member for Johnston is having a big yawn there, illustrating once again the total ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, please withdraw that.
Mrs LAMBLEY: I withdraw that. Sorry, Madam Speaker. The demonstrated disinterest of the opposition in Alice Springs is clear and palpable.
Tourism is an extremely significant industry throughout the Northern Territory. Alice Springs has suffered terribly in the last five years since the global economic crisis, the mismanagement of the government finances by the former Labor government and the 11 years of neglect of Labor. We have suffered; our tourism industry has experienced tough times.
The same tune was repeated by the member for Barkly. He has described how the Labor government let the Barkly down. They are now experiencing tough times in Tennant Creek. He described the problems faced by key tourism centres in Tennant Creek, and told a story about the problems of those centres, attributing those problems to this new government that has been in for less than six months. I remind the opposition ...
Mr McCarthy: We were building it up and you ripped it out.
Mrs LAMBLEY: The story the member for Barkly told us is completely different to the story told to me just two weeks ago by some people who have direct interest in the Battery Hill Visitors Centre. The stories I heard completely contradicted the stories told by the member for Barkly. Here we have more misinformation, more mistruths being peddled by the Labor Party, the sad and sorry opposition over there. The best they can do is peddle nonsense and continue to increase anxiety and angst in the community.
The story I was told was quite different. It was a story about the Battery Hill centre being run in a commercially unsustainable way for a long time. They have struggled to get, at this time of year, even a couple of visitors through each day. They are trying to run it like a business but they just do not have the tourists coming through town. They have not been coming through for years. The member for Barkly presided over that. He was the minister in the last government for several years. He knew it was a problem but he was too busy spending all his time in Darwin.
We know that because the people of Tennant Creek did not see the member for Barkly in Tennant Creek for about four years. Now he is out of his big job, back to being just the member for Barkly, he is starting to spend a little more time there and is realising the former Labor government took its eye off the ball. It allowed the Barkly region and Tennant Creek to slip into a very serious state when it came to tourism ...
Mr McCarthy: That is rubbish!
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes, we have heard lots of rubbish from the opposition, but when you hear the truth, that is when they start to yell and scream ...
Members interjecting.
Mrs LAMBLEY: I can hear mumblings over there because the truth is completely foreign to the opposition.
Over the last 10 years in Alice Springs we have had some interesting times in tourism. We have lost airlines; they have come and gone under the former Labor government. To our credit and the credit of the minister for Tourism who has worked tirelessly over the last five-and-a-half months, we celebrate Tiger Airways coming back to Alice Springs. That is what this government is all about when it comes to tourism. Tourism moving a significant part of its operation to Alice Springs and now Tiger is back in Alice Springs, is good news. All we hear from the opposition is wah, wah, wah because they are egocentric and Darwin-centric and that is all they can see. They have tunnel vision; it is all about Darwin.
In Alice Springs we celebrate the fact that this government has decided to recognise the second largest centre in the Northern Territory, one of the tourism meccas of the whole of Australia. Central Australia is one of the places where people want to go. They want to go at least once in their lifetime and once they have been they want to go back because the experience is beautiful and unique. We are so deeply proud of it. The people who sit across the other side of the room are not proud of anywhere apart from their own back yard, which does not extend as far as the Barkly. Poor old member for Barkly there, he sits alone. I bet none of his ...
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Treasurer continues to use ageist remarks, ‘the poor old member for Barkly’.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Any deflection, any way to take off the pressure from the pathetic group of people over there. I will not refer to his age because, obviously, that is a very sore spot for the member for Barkly. He sits alone. He is beating his drum saying, ‘Remember us, remember the’ …
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I call the Treasurer many things, but I have never called her old.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Barkly, there is no need for those frivolous points of order. Minister, you have the call.
Mrs LAMBLEY: The member for Barkly, what a sensitive human being he is. However, he is on his own. Of the rest of them, most of them are from Darwin. They are not interested in anywhere apart from Darwin, so he had to tell us a little story tonight about how things are so grim in Tennant Creek. Do you know why they are grim? Because you took your eye off the ball, member for Barkly. You were a minister of the former government and now you are trying to explain to your fellow residents of Tennant Creek just why things are so poor. The problems of Tennant Creek and the Tennant Creek tourism industry being the way it is are not down to five-and-a-half months of this government. It is about the former government, the opposition sitting over there, realising that things are pretty bleak outside of Darwin.
I absolutely reject this motion put forward by the member for Johnston tonight. It is all about their need to encapsulate all the funds, all the resources into Darwin and try to dismiss the needs of anywhere else when it came to the interests of the Northern Territory.
The member for Barkly talked about the real essence of tourism and that these decisions have to be logical and measured. I do not recall anything from the former government being logical and measured when it came to anything outside of Darwin. They were very much about themselves. There was no logic, no sensitivity, nothing apart from selfishness and Darwin-centric policy in place.
Madam Speaker, I am astounded the member for Johnston was even allowed to bring this forward by his colleagues because what it has effectively done is exposed them for the bigots they are.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, I support this motion. The government must stop the planned and forced move of Tourism NT staff to Alice Springs until it has conducted an extensive consultation. For the member for Araluen’s knowledge, this is not about Alice Springs versus Darwin; this is about consultation with the tourism industry.
The minister was quoted last year on ABC radio:
Minister, is this quote the basis of your need to move the department of Tourism and some of the Department of Parks and Wildlife staff to Alice Springs? A whole government department is to be relocated to honour an electorate area that handed you government?
I have no problem in relocating staff around the Territory and regionalising services is not a problem to me, but this needs to be well thought out, not a knee-jerk reaction or an action to repay a region for their support and loyalty. It needs to be a move based on consultation and research. What is best for the service or the government department? Is the outcome so urgent we must act in haste, making announcements before we have researched the move with some policies and plans to back this up? My colleague, the member for Johnston, tonight called on the minister, the member for Greatorex, to give us some statistics and costings – but, nothing.
If this outcome is so urgent, it is even more incredible the minister admitted the move was to suit himself as a minister and for his CEO. Building organisations around people is not right. This move reflects on your government which is making decisions and changes around individuals rather than good, well-thought-out policy.
All these issues are equally concerning with the move of Parks and Wildlife staff to Alice Springs as well. Do not get me wrong, minister, my view on these moves is no reflection of the skill level of the CEO or staff. The current acting Parks and Wildlife CEO is a person who has an extremely high skill level with a wealth of knowledge. This view about moving and relocating staff is to suit the minister and the needs of individuals. What happens if there is a change? What about when there was a falling out between CEO and ministers? When a minister does not agree with a CEO and we see a falling out, what happens then? This is similar to what we have seen with the recent change in Children and Families.
Is this outcome so urgent we cannot take the time to have a plan? We rush, are in haste, but we fail to have a suitable plan in this rush. This relocation was not your plan before the election; there was no mention of such relocation. The CLP policy failed to even acknowledge this. You made the announcement to media before you told your departmental staff who would be directly affected by the move. People who work in Tourism were bewildered. They heard it through the radio - not good human resource practice.
Tourism operators have expressed their concern with the move. They have not been consulted, and my colleague went into great detail. He put the word out there and the information came flooding back to him. He has spoken about the tourism operators who raised their concerns with him; they were dismayed there was no consultation.
This conversation tonight is not about Alice Springs or Darwin; it is about the lack of planning and costing. What is the cost of this relocation? How, in these times of frontline services being cut, could we spend what I can only guess is a huge amount of money to relocate a government department? There is a huge amount of money spent, but not one more tourist attracted to the Northern Territory.
We had a conversation about what airlines are flying in and out of where. That is purely Qantas and Jetstar relocating their routes to suit their business.
There has been no financial scrutiny of this move. It costs millions of dollars and should be subject to proper accountable analysis rather than plain politics. My colleague spoke of the considerable cost associated with the move: relocation of families; rebranding; leasing of buildings; occupying buildings where leases are still current so they still have to be paid; and telecommunication set up - to name a few. However, we have seen no costing, no details. I went out of the Chamber for a moment, and the minister’s speech was over. It was certainly lacking in detail.
I also question the significant move of departmental staff without thought, consultation, or plan simply to suit a minister. What impact does this have on expertise within departments? Are we losing valuable skills and knowledge of staff? You can almost call that a brain drain. Are people leaving the Tourism department because they do not want to move to Alice Spring? Minister, you said there will be no forced moves of staff but, in these small specialist areas, are we losing talent and expertise if people do not want to move? The people I know who work within Tourism say it is a small agency. There is one media person; there is one person who works in a certain area. As we know, staff all have lives away from their work: sports, social events, not to mention partners and families who also have strong links to the community in which they live.
It is okay to apply for a job and move to an area; that is thought out. However, to put pressure on them to move is putting considerable stress on them. Families have their lives, their children in schools, they own their homes, partners are employed, and relocating is not an easy and quick option. Staff will not move. The minister named two people who had moved. Staff will not move and you will lose expertise - years of specialist experience gone. I would like to know more behind this.
The government is starting to have a flow-on effect in the public service. People are doing jobs they do not want to do. Why are they doing it? Because it is permanent; they see it as the option at a time when the public service is being slashed. People are being forced into positions as redeployees; they do not want to be there. People who want to be in those jobs are being forced out of jobs. We are losing talented, highly-skilled and dedicated people. They are losing their jobs because they are on temporary contracts. Will it be harder to recruit staff to Alice Springs? In Darwin sometimes it is hard to attract people in specialist fields. These are questions I have raised. I do not know the answers to them, but it would have been nice for the minister to answer them tonight in his speech. This snap decision was made without evaluation, so we do not know.
Since you announced this decision, Tourism staff have been stressed. They are telling us they are finding out things second-hand through the media. This is not responsible management or leadership. We must ask more questions of the member for Greatorex, as there has not been enough openness and accountability around the move. My colleague, the member for Johnston, tonight asked a number of questions, but was criticised, without any response. What positions have moved? What functions have moved? It would have been good to hear these details before a political decision forces staff to relocate.
I have the shadow responsibility for Parks and Wildlife, and I have concerns about the move of staff to Alice Springs and its impact. These concerns are probably more based on lack of information. We know our visitors come to our beautiful Territory to experience our landscapes and unique heritage. They want to explore our park estate. They want to engage with traditional owners, park rangers, tourism operators, and locals to enjoy our unique Territory. They want to truly understand our landscapes and experience our parks. What does this move and relocations of Parks and Wildlife staff mean for frontline staff? Are we seeing money in this area spent on relocation and not on the ground in our parks? What is happening with what staff? Again, transparency would have alleviated this questioning. There are just so many unknowns because the minster has made a political decision for himself and a few people without being open and accountable.
Minister, you are saying ‘Trust us, trust me’ but we would like to know more about those issues. You should be explaining in more detail. Before any political decision is made in the House we should receive a fully-costed relocation report for our consideration so we can understand the details and an informed decision can be made. Regionalisation is not about simply doing something to please a certain group. I have no problem - I have spoken of it before - of relocation of government services if they are well thought out, it will support an area, and it works best for that service. However, this relocation of the department of Tourism and some additional staff from Parks and Wildlife, from all the comments I have heard - the minister himself has said it - is a political move to repay an electorate area.
Mr TOLLNER (Health): Madam Speaker, first, congratulations to the member for Johnston for his first motion on the Notice Paper. It is a wonderful day for him and I am happy to congratulate him on the achievement of getting a motion in his name. It is unfortunate he has picked such an issue, although I understand, as he is the shadow minister for Tourism, he has to try to find some opposition to what the government is doing in relation to tourism and the move to Alice Springs.
I was surprised to hear the contribution from the member for Barkly, which I found rather stunning for a couple of reasons. The member for Barkly mentioned fossicking. This has been an issue close to my heart. For some time, I have dealt quite extensively with the Northern Territory Fossickers Association and lobbied on their behalf to try to get more rights for fossickers in the Northern Territory. There was no response from the previous government. The previous government did hardly a thing to encourage fossicking in the Northern Territory.
The member for Goyder, in the previous parliament, was then the shadow Mines and Energy minister. She did an incredible job trying to lobby government to get more rights for fossickers. I remember speaking on motions that were put by the member for Goyder to give more rights to fossickers in the Northern Territory. The member for Goyder did a fantastic job in crafting the Country Liberal Party election platform in the area of Mines and Energy, in which fossickers featured clearly.
It is surprising now that the member for Barkly would come into this place singing the praises of the fossickers and how wonderful they are for tourism when he was part of a government that did practically nothing to encourage fossicking in the Northern Territory. He jumped up today and talked about the wonderful advice fossickers get from Battery Hill about where they can go and what they can do. If he talked to the fossickers, he would understand there are very few places anywhere in the Northern Territory that fossickers can go and have a look around with their metal detectors and pans.
I pay tribute to the member for Goyder for getting the rights of fossickers into an election platform because it was something which was completely ignored by Labor when they were in government - irrespective of the loudness of the calls from fossickers and the opposition. It was pure political bloody-mindedness that stopped the government from doing anything in relation to fossickers.
That was the first thing that struck me about the member for Barkly’s speech tonight. The second thing was his seeming animosity about moving the Tourism department out of Darwin into Alice Springs.
Goodness me, I can understand, I suppose for new members such as the member for Johnston who could be considered a bit wet behind the ears and to not understand the way the economy works or what drives the Northern Territory. I can understand it somewhat that the member for Nightcliff queries these sorts of things. However, for the member for Barkly to query these things I find alarming because the wealth of the Northern Territory is generated in the regions; it is not generated in Darwin. Darwin, Katherine, Alice Springs and Tennant Creek are generally service centres for the regions. All our mining, most of our tourism, and most of our agriculture and farming takes place outside of those locations. Darwin, Palmerston, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs service those industries and, at the end of the day, if we drive development in the Northern Territory, we have to look at the regions. We have to look at the industries that drive the regions because it is, ultimately, those industries that drive jobs and employment in places like Darwin, Katherine, Alice Springs and Tennant Creek.
I am somewhat stunned that the member for Barkly could question a policy about supporting the regions and those towns that are struggling at the moment for a myriad of reasons, rather than supporting those places trying to get people to them, building some economies of scale and getting some development happening in the regions. I find that somewhat daunting.
The other thing I find strange always comes back to the Labor opposition and, in some regard, to the NT News. I read an editorial in the NT News the other day suggesting that this government did not have a mandate to get rid of the Banned Drinker Register. The reasoning of the Northern Territory News editor was, ‘Hang on, they do not have a mandate because people in Darwin did not vote for them. It was only those ones in the bush’, as if those people do not count. The only ones who count are people who live in towns and cities. I find it appalling that a newspaper and an opposition can have that feeling, particularly the member for Barkly standing up querying something like that. He is practically the sole member outside of Darwin, apart from the member for Nhulunbuy - who, by the way, has recently found a voice ...
Mr Giles: Does she know where Gove is?
Mr TOLLNER: I think she does know where Gove is. Since the Chief Minister has done a gas to Gove deal she has learnt where Gove is. She has found a voice, which is great, because for the whole of the last term we never heard a peep from the member for Nhulunbuy.
We have two members on the opposition benches who come from somewhere other than Darwin. One would have thought those two members would be screaming from the rooftops ‘Come on government, support the regions. When will you move some departmental people into our regions? When will you try to pump prime our economies rather than just focusing on Darwin?’ But, no, the member for Barkly is quite happy to support this motion from the nave member for Johnston.
As you well know, Madam Speaker, being the member for Goyder, people outside Darwin and Palmerston also have a voice, and they deserve to be heard. They are counted when it comes to elections as voters, as constituents. For some reason or other, the opposition and the NT News thinks their vote is not worth the same as someone who lives in Darwin, particularly Darwin’s northern suburbs.
I have a big soft spot for Darwin’s northern suburbs. I was the member for Solomon for six years. They are great, marvellous people; it is a great place to live in Darwin. However, the fact is Darwin only survives because of the wealth created in our regions. As parliamentarians, we need to understand this. We need to sometimes think outside the square and our own electorates. When we wonder what is best for our electorate, sometimes it is trying to help do some good for someone in their electorate. Ultimately, it all comes back to Darwin.
I have tourism operators all through my electorate. I have award winning tourism operators in my electorate. But not one of those tourism operators is a tourism experience provider in Darwin city. People come to the Northern Territory to see the great outdoors. They go to Kakadu and Litchfield. The Europeans like to go to remote communities. They want to go fishing. Very few people visit Darwin to go to the movies. There are some wonderful attractions in Darwin such as Crocosaurus Cove, Crocodylus Park and a range of other fantastic experiences, but the vast majority of our tourism occurs in the regions. We need to recognise that and strengthen our regions.
At the moment, Alice Springs is somewhat a town in crisis because of the neglect and disregard the former government had for it. Crime is still a long way from being under control. A large proportion of Alice Springs is supported by government. If we can have something in Alice Springs which primes private enterprise, gives a surge to that entrepreneurial spirit people have, the better for the regions. The more we can do in our regions the better it is for all of us.
Madam Speaker, congratulations on your time in opposition as the shadow Mines and Energy spokesperson. You had a real understanding of the mining industry and of what role fossickers play in our region and what it can do to our tourism industry. You lobbied on their behalf, and that deserves congratulations. That should be congratulated by every member, not just those in regional areas but also the people who live in Darwin. Ultimately, fossickers also require services which are provided out of Darwin.
This motion is rather detestable. I can understand the member for Johnston may have it wrong; he is a new member. We have to give some leeway to new members with these types of motions. He is still a bit wet behind the ears when it comes to understanding clearly how the world works. However, there is no excuse for the member for Barkly.
The former minister lives in the region and should be applauding these decisions. It is very difficult, in opposition, to applaud a government decision, but to say nothing would have been much smarter than caning the government for moving Tourism to Alice Springs and ranting about the lack of fossickers in Tennant Creek. Goodness me! That is hypocrisy because you had more than 10 long years. We had 11 long years of hard Labor in the Northern Territory. Now they carry on about the lack of fossicking in the regions when they had 11 years to do something ...
Mr McCarthy: It is starting now.
Mr TOLLNER: We are hearing now that they started. I hear this all the time in this House. Members of the opposition say it was their idea. Good on you, you had a wonderful idea, but did you put anything into practice? No, absolutely not. You had many great ideas, and everything is easy in hindsight, but you did practically nothing for tourism in the Territory. It has gone backwards and we are spending a bomb on it. We have a new Tourism minister who has seized the opportunity with both hands and is spruiking the Northern Territory, talking the place up. He is already getting results. Tourism is to move to Alice Springs.
Madam Speaker, I would love everything to be in my electorate, but I understand my electorate survives on the rest of the Northern Territory, so I am happy to see a positive move like this. It will be positive for Alice Springs, it will be positive for the regions, and it shows this government’s commitment to developing the regions, which has to be a good thing for all of us.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I offer my criticism of this motion. First, the government does not list all the changes it may implement during its term in government as part of its election commitments. Many changes come up during a term of government. An example I draw on is the carbon tax. That is a good example, but, sorry, that was an election promise from the Prime Minister, and what did they do with that? They just swapped it around and implemented it. I can remember those words, ‘I will never introduce a carbon tax’.
I also raise whether the Henderson government let Tourism know it was to remove funding from Katherine and Tennant Creek Tourism Associations when it did? No, it did not, because it knew people would be upset that tourism in their towns was being put behind the pork barrelling of the savings from that being used for opening the Offices of the Chief Minister. I was a bit peeved by that because I was the Chairman of the Tourism Association at the time and I know Katherine suffered as a result.
I have just lost that ...
Mr McCarthy: When did we have an Office of the Chief Minister in Tennant Creek?
Mr HIGGINS: We had one in Katherine.
Mr McCarthy: You were talking about Tennant Creek.
Mr HIGGINS: I said the savings in Tennant Creek ...
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr HIGGINS: Madam Speaker, I have had 15 years’ experience in tourism, more than the member for Johnston who, from his speech, sees a school holiday as tourism experience. My experiences are with a number of small tourism businesses that rely on the caravan side of the industry which, surely, give the bread and butter to the key hub of our economy. More people come through Alice Springs on their road trip than Darwin, rather than turning left into Western Australia or right into Queensland.
I see this decision as one that recognises the Centre as a key attraction to our domestic tourists. It is not anti-Darwin, just pro-Territory. It is a recognition that our attractions are not in Darwin, but in the regions. Sydney has the harbour and the Blue Mountains, not just Hay and Griffith out west; they have nothing. That is possibly why we have some of these centres in the capital cities we talked about. The head of tourism in New South Wales is in Sydney, but all of the major centres across New South Wales have large tourism associations and tourism development ...
Mr Vatskalis: Run by local government.
Mr HIGGINS: Hey?
Mr Vowles: We used to have that until you changed it.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr HIGGINS: Does the member for Johnston think we are driven by others, or that we are self-determining in the Territory? By that I mean will we copy these other states? No, sorry, there it is again; they are driven by Canberra and the Prime Minister. Those on the other side are not allowed to make decisions, they need their masters in Canberra to pick their candidates.
Central Australia is integral to tourism, and to have our tourism headquarters close to this hub is a decision which has been successful and will reap some benefits, hopefully, immediately. It is something more than the nothing that was done by Labor over the last 10 years. I note there was no mention of the re-establishment of the Tourism department as a commission. That gives the tourism industry a direct input into tourism. Remember, the Labor change was to scrap the commission, next close the tourism offices across the Territory, then move the Tourism staff and CEO to a sub-office of a bigger department, the name of which was so big I cannot remember it.
The motion talked about relocation. I ask what Labor did with the staff employed by the tourism associations in the regional centres of Katherine and Tennant Creek? ‘Sacked them’, they said. ‘Not our worry, you are industry members, you employed them as ambassadors of your industry, so your problem’. Sorry, this government sees the industry as a key input to the economy
I give another example of the government’s waste in tourism which resulted from its lack of foresight. A new information bay was built at Daly River which was compensation for the closing of the Katherine Tourism Association. It was built at a cost of about $0.5m. This bay is 90 km off the highway and there is no town, no crossroads on the way to it. It is a pity if you have no idea what facilities the Daly has. You have no idea what is there until you get to this bay.
It gets worse. In the three years since that bay was built for $0.5m, there has been no information in the bay. Tourism operators did not want it because they wanted information available in Katherine. People pass through Alice Springs to Katherine and get their information there, not when they get to the destination.
This also reminds me of the signage policy in regard to tourism. Ten years, yet we have not seen a draft. Before the opposition criticises this idea, it should look in its own back yard. Get an idea of what you talk about before you criticise.
I also question the member for Nightcliff’s comments that this is a motion more about the public sector as opposed to tourism. It is about tourism because tourism is small business and, without income generated by small business, there would be no money to pay public servants. I prefer the title, ‘public service’. Yes, that is service and this move is to service tourism.
Madam Speaker, in closing, this decision is more visionary than those made by Labor.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I thank all the members who spent time on this motion on the important topic of tourism. I applaud everybody for their comments.
I was a little disappointed with the minister for Tourism, the member for Greatorex, and his seven-minute speech replying to this motion.
I am still waiting for the costings. He ranted and raved a bit but did not give me the answers I was asking for, which were simply to the questions the tourism operators, who are contacting me every day, every week, are asking. ‘What will this cost and why the move to Alice Springs?’ I am happy to take those costings on board, at some stage, if they come in. They should turn up before estimates because the office in Alice Springs will be open and running by then. It is such an important industry we need to get this right.
I will give the member for Greatorex credit where credit is due. If more people come to the Territory, that is what we want. We want to see more people visit this beautiful place we call the Territory, stay here as long as they can and spend their money. That is what we are all about. I will give credit to the member for Greatorex, the minister for Tourism, if more people come here. I will not be an opposition spokesman who will criticise, criticise, criticise.
I am simply bringing to the table that this decision to move the tourism headquarters to Alice Springs was made without consultation. As the shadow minister for Tourism, it is my important role that I voice the concerns of Territorians. I will give credit to the member for Greatorex, the minister for Tourism, if more people come to the Northern Territory. I have no problem doing that.
I thank the member for Barkly who was very informative. The member for Barkly and I spoke at length about tourism in Tennant Creek. We had a good chat about fossicking. Fossickers are called ‘prospectors’ in the Northern Territory. We are the only place in Australia they are called that. It is an important issue.
I reiterate that we might have done things wrong, we might have done things right, but we need to explore any opportunity that will bring dollars to the Northern Territory in tourism, whether that means the fossickers, the caravan parks, or highlighting a certain destination. This Territory is big and beautiful. I love it and everybody who comes here will love it.
The member for Araluen was a bit grumpy. That is all right. I love the theatrics of the member for Araluen. Unfortunately, it turned it into an Alice Springs and Darwin-centric issue. That is not what I am about. I lived in Alice Springs for a long time; I love the place. This is simply me relaying the questions which have been asked of me about why this move to Alice Springs has been made, how much it will cost, and why? Is it politics? Is it research? Is it the costing? It is all these things, and she missed the point about that. I am simply asking, why did this have to happen? As I said, I will give every credit I can if more people come to Alice Springs and the Territory.
I did enjoy the member for Araluen’s speech, but not as much as the member for Fong Lim’s or Braitling’s. The fact that she spoke three times longer than the Tourism minister was some credit to her.
I thank my colleague, the member for Nightcliff, who raised many questions that have not been answered tonight. That is what I want to keep going. The bungling of Tourism and the announcements were something we all cringed over. To hear that your job may be moved to Alice Springs if you are in Tourism or Parks is not the right way to do things. I am sure this new government will give some leeway, as the member for Fong Lim gave me some leeway about my first motion in the House. I thank him for that. We will give some leeway, you are a new government. We hope and expect you will get the processes right and start treating the public servants with the respect they deserve.
Member for Daly, thank you very much. I respect the member for Daly for his role and experience in Katherine tourism. Many years ago, I heard about his knowledge and experience in that role, and I applaud him for his efforts. I applaud anyone who has the knowledge and experience to bring extra dollars into this Territory. For the member for Daly, I have travelled around the world but my school holidays were only to Batchelor, and I loved it. I thank you for your contribution.
The member for Fong Lim - what a bloke. He knows your first motion can be a little dodgy; people are going for you. You are not on my side, but I am glad you are over there. There is a mutual respect and you brought up some good points. The fossicking idea is something that needs to be investigated and, I am sure, worked on because, as I keep saying, anything that brings extra dollars into this town and this Territory is a good thing. It is worth something like $3m, or millions more dollars in the tourism industry. They keep coming. I met with some fossicking people over the last week and they were very passionate. It makes a lot of sense why we should do that. This new government needs to explore that.
In wrapping up, I am not against regionalisation. I wanted to voice the concerns of the tourism operators, the Tourism staff and concerned Territorians who contacted me about why the government is doing this. The industry was not consulted. They need to be consulted in such an important industry which is worth $1.4bn to the Territory economy. As the shadow minister for Tourism, I will ensure I hold the minister to account, which is my role - as he did, as a shadow for many years. I welcome that and I hope, at some stage, we can work together and bring the Territory forward in tourism.
I look forward to the costings. I hope I do not have to wait for estimates. I will give credit where credit is due and, if more people come to the Territory, I will respect and applaud it. Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to bring this motion to the House.
Motion negatived.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, I move that the House:
(a) supports the establishment of a new bulk-billing super clinic in the northern suburbs at the location already earmarked for the clinic, and
The federal government has tried many times to attract GPs to remote areas with incentives but it looks like most people prefer to stay in the large urban centres because of family, they grew up there, or they can make more money there.
We have a significantly smaller number of GPs in the Northern Territory. When you cannot access a GP when something goes wrong and you have to wait a day or two, sometimes three, you try to find somebody to address the issue at the emergency department, even for the simplest ailment. The result is we have seen a significant increase in the numbers of people going to the emergency departments at our hospitals, mainly at Royal Darwin Hospital. Recently, we found from the release of a federal government report that waiting numbers for the emergency department are increasing.
Many times in this parliament I was questioned by the opposition spokesman and said the numbers at the emergency department at Royal Darwin Hospital continually increased. We are able to meet the time lines for people with an urgent issue 100%; for example, a heart attack. However, the department is clogged by people who should not be there who have ailments which could be treated by a GP in a private practice.
Of course, every time we say that people probably laugh at us because they say, ‘When my child is sick at night and I want someone to look at him and there are no doctors, I will go to the emergency department’. The same people the next day will complain about emergency departments.
We tried to address this issue in various ways but could not do it successfully until we were lucky enough to have a proposal, in 2009, by the Commonwealth Department of Health. The Health Department in the Northern Territory signed an agreement with the Commonwealth for the establishment of the first super clinic in Palmerston. At the time, I was very sceptical of how successful it would be but am pleased to admit I was wrong to be sceptical.
The Northern Territory government Department of Health was responsible for the design, construction and commissioning of the facility in Palmerston and undertook to source a third party to operate the facility. It would not be operated by the Department of Health - we wanted somebody else to do it. The Flinders University and Charles Darwin University formed a not-for-profit company, FCD Health, and submitted a tender for it and started running Palmerston Super Clinic. The Australian Medical Association was initially against the facility for their own reasons, but afterwards changed their mind and I explained why.
We had in place a fundamental principle for the operation of the GP super clinic in Palmerston. We wanted the super clinic to provide a high-quality comprehensive, integrated, and patient-centred primary health service to the Palmerston community. We wanted to recruit, train and retain a clinical workforce.
One of the big problems with the lack of GPs in Australia is the fact that in 2000, under the Howard government, the current Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, reduced the number of graduates from medical schools in universities. That created a huge deficit of doctors graduating from universities and being trained in our hospitals. As a matter of fact, in remote areas, the majority of doctors are overseas trained. They settle in Australia, they train in Australian hospitals, and they stay in remote areas. Some of our very good doctors in the Territory were born and trained overseas and have moved to Australia.
We now know the super clinic in Palmerston is very good. In the first three months of its operation, the super clinic saw 3705 patients and the services were provided mainly by local general practitioners. They had only about one-and-a-half full-time equivalent positions of practitioner registrar, with one nurse, and a small group of practice support staff.
Today, the super clinic in Palmerston has about 10 general practitioners, four nurses, allied health professionals, and medical students supported by eight practice support staff. The number of people has grown significantly. From the beginning of 2012 until the end of September 2012, they had seen about 26 500 people. I have been advised by the end of 2012 they had seen 33 833 people - and that was only through the general practitioner. If you included people seen by allied health, it was in total 36 000 in the super clinic in Palmerston.
The AMA, which initially opposed the super clinic in Palmerston, supports the super clinic now because that super clinic started training doctors from the medical school in Charles Darwin University and from Royal Darwin Hospital. The model of the super clinic in Palmerston was a good model, and is now considered by the Commonwealth as one of the best super clinics in Australia.
I come now to the northern suburbs super clinic. The one in Palmerston seems to work very well and has seen 36 000 people in one year of operation, a significant load off general practitioners in Darwin. We have some private practitioners in clinics operating like the ones in Nightcliff and Casuarina, but what we really need is a bigger number of practitioner GPs in Darwin. We do not have that. The demand continues to increase as the population of Darwin has increased. We have a young population and the demand is there.
To give an example, some of the doctors who are my friends opened the clinic in Casuarina, the Top End Practice. They advised me they see 400 people a day accessing the Casuarina practise in Vanderlin Drive. The demand is so big that, from originally seven doctors they have gone to 10; they brought in specialist paediatric doctors; and they have expanded their time of operation from five days a week to seven days a week and public holidays. They provide a bulk-billing service. Because they are very close to my electorate office at Casuarina I go to this practice sometimes. I was prepared to pay but I was bulk-billed like every other person in that area. Because of the significant demand and the example they have set with bulk-billing, I believe another general practice in Casuarina Shopping Square has now moved from charging people who then have to go to Medicare to receive the payment, to bulk-billing patients. The practice is in high demand.
At the same time, many people - especially people with young children - find it quite difficult to access the clinics, not only because of the lack of the GPs but because of the cost. Every time I have been to a doctor I have been charged $85 and received $36 back from Medicare. That is okay for me; I can afford it. However, when you have a family with young children, definitely they cost because if one gets sick all of them will be sick. So, you have to go to the clinic and you finish up with significant cost.
That was the reason why, when the opportunity was given by the federal government to have another super clinic like the one in Palmerston, we jumped at the opportunity. Together with the federal government, we called for an expression of interest by general practitioners in Darwin to establish a northern suburbs super clinic. Unfortunately, we did not receive any expression of interest from any GPs for various reasons.
We discussed the issue with GPs. The argument they made was the reporting mechanism put in place by the federal government was so onerous they were not prepared to do it. Another reason we received was because super clinic bulk-billing would not make any money for the people to operate. Again, that was a requirement of the federal government, member for Fong Lim, it had nothing to do with the Territory government. You will find exactly the same problems if you continue down that path and establish a general practice.
We were in danger of losing $5m put on the table by the then minister, Nicola Roxon, for a super clinic in the northern suburbs. I took a trip to Melbourne and persuaded the minister that I was prepared to work with the federal government to find a provider, as long as the $5m remained in Darwin. I have this commitment from the federal minister and it remains on the table following the change of ministers in the portfolio. The new minister, Tanya Plibersek, confirmed the decision that the $5m will be on the table for the Northern Territory.
We were approached by a private provider who is experienced in super clinics. That provider established one in Queensland and one in South Australia. He has a very good business model which he presented to us, and we realised that business model will operate in the Territory. Also, this business model was working very well in Queensland and in South Australia. In Queensland, the government had provided him a site near a public hospital and, in South Australia, the government had also assisted in the establishment of a super clinic. Obviously, these governments believed the super clinic was a good thing for the people and were prepared to assist.
In the Territory, apart from the $5m on the table, we decided to provide the operator with a site near Sanderson Middle School to establish a super clinic in an area which is very important. It is a middle class to low socioeconomic area with young families who will need access to a clinic, and is far away from the hospitals. If we provided land near the hospital and he established a super clinic there, most people would bypass the super clinic and head straight for the emergency department. We want to stop people accessing the emergency department except if it is a serious incident, and to access the super clinic instead.
The minister, Tanya Plibersek, still maintains interest in the establishment of a super clinic in Darwin. She knows well the previous government has provided land which has been rezoned. I also understand in a recent meeting with the current minister, the member for Fong Lim, she asked questions about the super clinic and the minister told her he would get back to her later to discuss it with her.
I urge the minister to proceed with the establishment of the super clinic. I know that some people in his party are ideologically opposed to the super clinic, but I urge him to have a very good look at the super clinic in Palmerston, how it operates, and what services it provides in the area. From November to now, the super clinic in Palmerston has extended its hours of operation from 8 am to 10 pm. It also intends to provide a pharmacy from the first half of 2013 and develop a centre of medical excellence in Palmerston. This could happen in exactly the same way in the northern suburbs of Darwin.
I have some concerns about the commitment of the Country Liberal Party to the super clinic in the northern suburbs. What we have seen in the past few months does not encourage me that this will happen. The fact that in the mini-budget the minister was very quick to get rid of the medi-hotel is something he will pay for because, as we have seen in the past few days, the bed block at RDH forces people to stay longer in the beds in the ED, or they are discharged when they should not be for the simple reason that many beds in Royal Darwin Hospital are occupied by people who are not well enough to go home but are not sick enough to be in hospital. In some cases, they are occupied by people who should be in a nursing home but, because there are no beds available, these people occupy valuable beds in wards. These people could be housed in a medi-hotel. I heard the statement that the Health Department should not become a hotelier. We do not argue with that.
We have a medi-hotel called Barbara James House that provides services to people who come here from remote areas or other towns for cancer treatment in the Territory. Barbara James House is operated by an NGO. People pay from their travel assistance money and there is no extra charge to them. The same model could be used at a medi-hotel in Darwin. After all, RDH is the biggest hospital in the Territory and many people from the regions have to come to RDH for treatment. It is crazy having people occupying beds that can be provided to people who really need them. These people could be moved out of the Royal Darwin Hospital wards to the medi-hotel for the time required to be completely treated.
I was also very disappointed that the current government did not grab the opportunity for the money provided by the federal government for a new mothers’ and children’s ward, a stand-alone ward that not only would provide a new facility for children and mothers, but would actually relieve the pressure on the Royal Darwin Hospital. Scoping and preliminary planning had been done. People were very enthusiastic and Dr Bauert was ecstatic that we would have a brand new ward.
The minister knows, because I believe he has been to the Royal Darwin Hospital, that the current children’s ward has passed its use-by date and needs to be completely refurbished and redone. The reality is, no matter how much money you spend, you would not have a state-of-the-art mothers’ and children’s ward, you would have to start from scratch and do something else with that area. The Royal Darwin Hospital has the only children’s ward where the kids are locked in an air-conditioned environment on the fifth floor, 24 hours a day. In other hospitals around Australia, yes, the children stay in their beds when they have to, but when they do not, they have access to a playground and an outside environment.
The other thing that concerns me is the CLP has not made any noises about the Palmerston Hospital, for their own reasons. This hospital was designed and about to be developed in consultation with the council, the community, service providers, doctors and nurses, with money from the federal government. It would relieve the pressure on the Royal Darwin Hospital.
Minister, these are decisions you have to make. Being a Health Minister is not the best job in Cabinet. I used to call it a poisoned chalice and you will share my concerns about it.
You were probably given the job to keep you away from leadership aspirations you may have because, when you are occupied with the business of health, that keeps you too busy to start thinking about plotting how to topple the Chief Minister. The first one failed, now we are waiting for the next two contestants to see who will be the winner by Easter. I do not know if it will be Catholic Easter or Greek Easter, but I am waiting for it.
I told you before, there is an opportunity to make a difference in the Territory. There is an opportunity to provide the services for Territorians; services that are not there today. I urge you to consider the offer by the federal government. I urge you to talk to the provider. I do not know if you have been approached by the provider yet, but if you have not, I am quite happy to provide you all the information I have. I hope you will persuade your colleagues in Cabinet that you will be able to work with the federal government in order to establish the super clinic in the northern suburbs.
It is not something that is good to have; it is something we have to have. It is something the community demands and needs. We have seen the pressure put on the current operators. Take a trip to the Nightcliff clinic one day. Walk in and you will find the number of people waiting to be seen by doctors. Go to the Vanderlin Drive Medical Centre in Casuarina and you will find out how many people are waiting to be seen by a doctor. You will realise how much demand there is for a super clinic.
Madam Speaker, our government secured the $5m funding to remain in Darwin. Our government found and rezoned an area as a property for a super clinic. Our government had the initial negotiations with the service provider. It is up to the minister to now make the decision to establish the super clinic in the northern suburbs.
Mr TOLLNER (Health): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Casuarina for bringing this on. I am thankful for the member for Casuarina for truncating his comments. I am cognisant of the fact that we have another 15 minutes of General Business Day left and I welcome the opportunity to respond to the member for Casuarina.
Member for Casuarina, I am thrilled that you have brought this motion on. I have been dead keen to talk about your planned super clinic at Sanderson school for a long time, it is just that the opportunity has not presented itself. I am grateful you have brought it on now.
The Sanderson super clinic proposed by the former government was a sweetheart deal the former government cooked up with their federal colleagues. The member for Casuarina and comrade Plibersek clearly worked out what they wanted and put it out in the electorate. There was no consultation with the Department of Health.
On taking the Health ministry portfolio, I was given a list of briefing notes on various agencies and services the department provides, but there was nothing at all on the Sanderson super clinic. When I queried the department why they did not present me with that information, they told me they did not have that information; that a deal was done within the minister’s office and the Department of Health was not aware of what those negotiations were.
Second, there was no consultation, oddly enough, with the school itself. The school council, I am well informed by the member for Sanderson, was not aware of the government’s plans for a super clinic on school grounds. One would think if you excise a chunk of land off a school you would talk to the school council. The school council was not aware. Quite clearly, the Principal of Sanderson Middle School was aware. After all, she was the Labor candidate so she was let in on the deal. However, the school council was not.
There was no community consultation. It was quite interesting we had a motion a little while ago from the member for Johnston about the move of Tourism NT from Darwin to Alice Springs and a number of members on the other side said, ‘What about the consultation?’ Oddly enough, when it came to putting a super clinic on school grounds the community that school serves was not consulted. It is interesting the way these guys do business. You would think what is good for the goose is good for the gander, but not necessarily the case with our lefty comrades opposite. The fact is, practically no one was consulted. Comrade Plibersek, Comrade Green and Comrade Vatskalis did an in-house job and came up with this wonderful plan for a super clinic on the grounds of Sanderson Middle School.
I am well informed by the member for Sanderson that the school wants that land and is opposed to handing it over to another organisation because they are very keen on things like experiential learning, which the member for Sanderson informed me is a big factor at Sanderson Middle School. They want to teach kids skill-based training for those students who do not want to go on to university and need to learn skills that will prepare them for a life after school. Areas of irrigation, horticulture, growing things - a whole range of outdoor activities that are good learning opportunities for youth would have been taken away from them had this super clinic gone ahead.
The member for Casuarina said, ‘We found this block of land’. Why did he not recommend that organisation go off to Malak Shopping Centre, which seems to have more room, or Karama Shopping Centre? Fundamentally, it is because, member for Casuarina - and you and I know - that organisation wanted the land thrown in. The big sweetener from the Territory government is they would find them a block of land. The block of land had to be somewhere in the northern suburbs. What was easier than the school where the candidate was the principal - nice and easy deal, cut and dried, no dramas there.
However, in actual fact, you are dead right; the $5m is still on the table. I spoke with minister Plibersek two weeks ago in Canberra. She queried me on what was happening with it. I said I did not realise you guys were fair dinkum. I thought this was a bit of a joke in order to get the comrades in the Northern Territory, in particular, the Labor candidate in Sanderson, over the line. She said, ‘Oh, no, no, no. The $5m is still on the table if you want to use it’. Member for Casuarina, I tell you I am interested in that offer and we are investigating locations where we might be able to place that super clinic. Clearly, the feedback we got from that community is they do not want it at the Sanderson school, so we have to find another location.
This takes me to some comments the member made in relation to the Palmerston Super Clinic. He said it is a roaring success. I suppose it has to be, doesn’t it? They were given considerable amounts of money from the Commonwealth to seed and start that business. The Northern Territory government contributed the land and the building site, of course, and the Territory government also pays around $1m a year - a $1m a year - for the free after-hours service that is provided at that location.
On top of that, the Health Department also provides the Executive Officer to the Palmerston Super Clinic. Robyn Cahill is doing a great job there. It is interesting to note that super clinic was very much struggling to keep its doors open until the department lent that organisation Robyn Cahill to provide the management services. Robyn Cahill, I am very glad to say, has turned it around and made it a going concern. It will be interesting to see how that clinic would operate without the $1m that comes for the free after-hours service or without the services of Robyn Cahill.
The member for Casuarina, in his statement, said there is this wonderful stuff going on at the bulk-billing clinic at Vanderlin Drive. Did the Commonwealth government provide that clinic $5m? Did the government provide them free accommodation? Did the government provide them with an executive officer? The answer on all of those things is no. No, it did not; those people set up their business as true entrepreneurs without any government support.
There are other things in the Casuarina area the member for Casuarina is aware of. There is the skin cancer clinic, the day surgery, and the pharmacy. Government did not provide any support to those organisations whatsoever. In fact, they did what any other business does; they went and leased or bought their premises, they employed their staff out of money they saved or borrowed, and they did it on their own. In fact, a number of them said they did it despite the previous government.
I found it quite amazing to come into this job as Health Minister because, for a long time now, we have all recognised the need for private practitioners in the Northern Territory. I used to scratch my head, as we would complain about the health system and the minister would say, ‘Hang on, hang on. We are doing enormous amounts in the Northern Territory government. We are doing this service and we are doing that service. The big problem, of course, in the Northern Territory, is we do not have any private providers as in the other states. How do we attract them here?’
I started thinking how we attract them here. Then, I got this job and, before I knew it, my door was almost beaten down by private providers coming into my office wanting to know if they will be allowed to set up. I said, ‘Okay, what are you looking for? Do you need a grant? Do you need something’? ‘No, no, we just want approval’. I said, ‘I beg your pardon?’ They said, ‘No, no, we just want approval’. I have people who want to set up day surgeries and bulk-billing practices in Palmerston.
But, no, here we are in government, talking about providing a free $5m grant and land and, before we know it, we will be giving them a $1m ongoing to provide a free after-hours service plus an executive officer. This is how the previous government operated. These guys in Casuarina who are in the member for Casuarina’s electorate, go out on their own bat, set these things up despite government and are doing a fantastic job. The bulk-billing centre in Casuarina is seeing some 60 000 people a year. That is an incredible number. That takes an enormous load off the hospital and the emergency department.
Similarly, at the day surgery, they tell me they are doing 20 surgeries a day in that little building. Did they get any help from government? Did they get any assistance? No. The government put hurdles in front of them all the way through, but they persevered and they managed. They overcame the previous government’s objections. They have set up and are now doing 20 surgeries a day.
I am amazed at the number of people coming to see me. Only yesterday, I saw a couple of gastroenterologists wanting to know whether they might be able to set up in Casuarina as well. They want consulting rooms. I said, ‘Okay. What is it that you need to sweeten the deal?’ or something like that. ‘No, we just want to know whether we would have the support of government to do it’. I said, ‘Of course. Absolutely, of course. We would love you to set up a service here in Casuarina’. I have to scratch my head and wonder. How do I justify to the people who run the bulk-billing centre, the skin cancer clinic, the day surgery, and the pharmacy, handing over $5m to competition and giving them a free block of land?
I spoke to the people who are the proponents of the super clinic. I said, ‘There are plenty of places you can go. There is a heap of space at Malak Shopping Centre. There is a heap of space at the airport. Ian Kew at the airport is desperate to rent some of that space’. But, no, that is not what they are about. They want the land thrown in by the NT government. I will investigate some ways to do that if we can have a good extra super clinic that works and does not compromise the government with other people in private practice. I am dead keen to look at it. I am doing everything I can to investigate land availability in the area where we might be able to come to some arrangement with the proponents of that super clinic.
It is difficult, member for Casuarina. That is why, you found that enormous resistance when you proposed the super clinic at Palmerston. You encountered that resistance from the AMA. The AMA was saying it is very difficult to set this up. First, you are giving these guys a free leg up, a free hand. Second, you are taking practitioners away from existing businesses in that area. That was their concern.
The Palmerston super clinic is operating and is doing a wonderful job at the moment, but let us not gild the lily. It is costing the Territory taxpayer a $1m a year, the land availability, and the executive officer whose time runs out sometime in the middle of this year. It will be interesting to see whether that super clinic can continue to operate without her services and whether they can step up to the plate and take on the free after-hours service which they are committed to. They keep telling me, ‘We are trying, we are getting there, but we are not quite there yet’. I know there are many doctors out there. There are many specialists, there are many surgeons; a whole range of people in medical practice who are dead keen to set up ...
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired and GBD has finished. Do you wish to adjourn to a later time?
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, can I take an extra five minutes and finish my comments. Is that appropriate?
Ms LAWRIE: Speaking to that request, Madam Speaker. My understanding of the GBD arrangements that have existed for a long time is there is provision under standing orders to take a five-minute extension to finish your remarks.
Madam SPEAKER: Okay, five minute extension, minister.
Ms LAWRIE: On the agreement of both sides, I think that is.
Mr Elferink: No, I thought it was 10.
Ms LAWRIE: We can check, but I know it is at least five. If he wants to take 10 ...
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, I am happy with five or 10. I appreciate the fact that the member for Casuarina truncated his remarks so I could speak, so I will not abuse that privilege. I am thankful I have had the opportunity to put the government’s side of the super clinic story out there.
I am keen to work with the federal government to see whether we can actually do something to establish a super clinic in the northern suburbs but, at the same time, I am not interested in corrupting the private practices out there with government handouts and subsidies and the like.
The government will not be supporting this motion simply because the idea of the former government’s of putting a super clinic at a school without any consultation with the school council or the community and most importantly, with the Department of Health, flies in the face of reason, particularly when they are talking about the amount of money they are, and when there are so many doctors and surgeons and the like keen to set up in the Northern Territory. I am very hopeful that in the next couple of years we will see many more practices opening up and taking the burden off our hospitals and public health services right across the board because. The fact of the matter is, we need them in the Northern Territory. Many people have private medical cover in the Northern Territory and they look forward to having choice in a system.
Madam Speaker, I am doing everything I can to encourage private investment in this area and will continue to do so because, only through expanding our entire health services will we have a health system that services everyone.
Debate adjourned.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Madam Speaker, I pay my respects to Richard Johnston Wallace, otherwise known as Dick Wallace, a soon to be retired stipendiary magistrate in the Northern Territory.
He has rendered the Northern Territory years of faithful service and, as the Attorney-General of the Northern Territory, I cannot forebear but to come into this House and pay my tribute to him and thank him for his many years of service. Mr Richard Johnston Wallace, Stipendiary Magistrate, will retire on 14 April 2013. Mr Wallace is currently on long service leave and will be retiring on that date.
Mr Wallace was educated at Prince Alfred College, Adelaide, and matriculated in 1969, being ranked first in the South Australian General Honours List for Modern History. Mr Wallace graduated from the University of Adelaide with seven prizes for academic excellence and gained first class honours, Bachelor of Laws Degree and a Bachelor of Arts Degree majoring in Economics and Politics. After working as a tutor at the University of Adelaide, Mr Wallace took up a two-year scholarship at Magdalene College, Oxford, where he gained a Bachelor of Civil Laws Degree. He arrived in Darwin in the early 1980s and for two years was associate to Sir William Forster, the then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory.
In 1982 he was an articled clerk to Mr Pat Loftus, of the firm Loftus and Cameron, having been admitted to the practice as a legal practitioner in August 1982. In October 1983, Mr Wallace joined the Prosecutions Section of the then Department of Law, which later became the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and remained there for 10 years. During that time he appeared for the prosecution in the Magistrates Court throughout the Northern Territory and did many Supreme Court trials and appeared regularly before the Court of Appeal and Court of Criminal Appeal. His most publicised trial was the joint murder trial of the Crown against Heiss and Camm. Mr Wallace was a member of the Attorney-General’s Criminal Code Review Committee; he took up a position of relieving magistrate on 6 December 1993, and permanent magistrate on 27 October 1995. After 16 years in Darwin, Mr Wallace was the Katherine magistrate during 2012.
Mr Wallace will retire, as I said, on 14 April 2013. I place on record my personal gratitude, as well as the gratitude of the people of the Northern Territory in this House, so it is a permanent record of our gratitude. He should be appropriately acknowledged in that fashion.
I also wanted to thank - it is probably a little dated now, it came in November last year, but it is worth mentioning - a letter from Ms June Noble, part of the official visitors program, and it reads:
I place on the record my thanks to Ms June Noble for her kind words. However, the congratulations should not be aimed at me, but rather Superintendent Bill Carroll and Chief Prison Officer Pomery. Can I say to all prison officers who work in the Alice Springs Correctional facility, I find it extremely heartening that we get such positive feedback, particularly under the difficult circumstances we find ourselves with our substantial prison population. I have to thank the Prison Officer’s Association and the prison officers generally, particularly in this case in the Alice Springs environment, because of the excellent work they do.
As Correctional Services minister, I talk about the Department of Correctional Services being honoured with a prestigious defence award. The Correctional Services Commissioner, Ken Middlebrook, accepted a few days ago the 2012 Northern Territory Defence Reserve Support Employer of the Year Award at a function at the Larrakeyah Officer’s Mess. Speaking on behalf of the department, Mr Middlebrook said the award was a great honour. He was quoted as saying to be acknowledged with this award as a supportive employee of staff who are members of the Defence Reserves is a source of pride for the department. These men and women give their time voluntarily to the defence of Australia and its national interests with many having served on operations overseas. Equally important, from an employer’s perspective, they bring back to their civilian work environments valuable knowledge and skills from their military training that only serves to enhance their careers.
I congratulate Mr Middlebrook on maintaining the reserves policy inside the prison system. Mr Middlebook said the department viewed releasing staff for military training and operational services as part of its own contribution to national security. He is quoted as saying if we ever can make it easier for individuals to join training as defence reservists we fulfil a valuable contribution to the nation as a whole. The department was nominated for the award by Prison Officer Robyn Drake, a leading aircraft woman in the Air Force Reserve.
I am very proud of the work being done and congratulate Commissioner Middlebrook on his efforts and work in this area. I congratulate the prison officers who have participated in the defence of our nation. We are proud of them, I am proud of them, and it demonstrates the level of commitment we see in the people who work in the very difficult environment of our custodial services. My congratulations and support to them all.
Mr KURRUPUWU (Arafura): Madam Speaker, tonight I wish to talk about something very close to my heart - education.
I was very proud and happy to attend the student’s graduation ceremony at Gunbalunya on 21 January this year, not only as a local member but also as a former teacher.
This graduation had very special significance as, for the first time in the history of school at Gunbalunya, two students graduated from Year 12. Not only did they graduate Year 12, but they set themselves as role models for others to follow. They were able to show if you have the will and drive to succeed, then anything is possible. These two proud young men are James Marrday and Robert Balmana.
It was a joy to see these two stand before a crowd of several hundred community members, which included other students, community elders, teachers, and senior executives from various government departments, and deliver their graduation speeches. They spoke about the journey through education and what got them to where they are today. They spoke about distraction along the way and how they got past it. They spoke about the support of their family and what that meant to them.
Both these fine young men went to the Clontarf Academy that has been running at Gunbalunya over the past few years in conjunction with West Arnhem College. I cannot speak highly enough of the Clontarf Academy and the fine work they are doing in our community. I pay particular tribute to the Clontarf team at Gunbalunya; that is, Lee Stewart and Marius Clarke. I know they are working very closely with Clontarf people at Jabiru, Brad Copeland and Jason Roe. The partnership with West Arnhem College has proven to be invaluable to the people of this region, and I know it is greatly appreciated.
I would also like to place on the record the appreciation I feel for the hard work and dedication put in by all the staff at Gunbalunya School, both Billie Djayhgurrnga and Sue Trimble, who are doing a great job at school, and I believe attendance is going very well. Honourable members may not be aware that the school at Gunbalunya has been trialling, over the past two years, an early start to the school year, and this appears to be paying dividends by way of improving attendance rates.
There are many communities in the Northern Territory which are cut off and isolated during the Wet Season and local movement is extremely difficult. There is often no way to visit homelands during the Wet so people are stuck in town and the children are running around with not much to do. The idea is to take advantage of the situation and conditions and, later in the year, have extended school holidays during the Dry. It is a commonsense approach to very real problems, and I commend communities and all involved for their effort.
I do not have enough time available here to mention all the people who had input into the success I talk about tonight, but I will name a few and I apologise in advance for any I miss: John Bray, Randall Cook, Betty Maralngurra, Phil Maunders, Marion Guppy and all the hard-working and dedicated teachers in West Arnhem College, as well as others I have already mentioned.
I quote from the words delivered by the Master of Ceremonies on the day, Dr James Smith:
These words reflect very clearly the attitude, pride and confidence felt by local people, and I place on record my admiration for these achievements which can only be attributed to the whole community. I very sincerely look forward to working very closely with the community, and the region, and supporting them wherever I can.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, tonight I speak on a matter that was raised by the very hard-working member for Daly in his adjournment debate last night. The member for Daly, who was taking on board the concerns of his constituents in the Daly River region, spoke last night about the Vista Gold waste discharge licence from the Mt Todd Mine, and the need for further community consultation.
The public meeting held by Vista Gold in Katherine last Saturday was a great success. Around 20 members of the local town turned up to air their concerns and ask some of the pressing questions that were on their minds. Also present were representatives from Vista, along with staff from the Departments of Mines and Energy and Land Resource Management, as well as from the EPA.
The member for Daly, in his speech last night, raised a good point. On the back of successful Katherine meetings, the residents of Daly should be afforded the same opportunity. That is an example of a good local member working hard for his community and his constituents. The member for Daly has approached me and asked to have staff from the same departments, and the EPA, to be available for such a meeting in his region. Of course, a reasonable request deserves a reasonable response, and I am pleased to advise I have considered the member for Daly’s request and I will ask my Chief Executives to make staff available to attend such a meeting once a date and location is provided. I will also seek the attendance of a representative from the EPA.
The Water Act does not require a statutory consultation process to take place before, during, or after the issue of a waste discharge licence; however, in response to this very reasonable request by the member for Daly – who, I might add, is a very hard-working member and certainly a more responsive member for Daly than his predecessor - I am happy to assist the people of Daly to have a forum where they can ask their questions, get the answers, and build an understanding of the issues around the waste discharge licence. I thank the member for Daly for bringing this matter to my attention.
I also speak tonight about a revolution that is happening in my little patch in Katherine. It is a quiet revolution and one that is improving the health and fitness of many people in my great town. It would seem that Katherine is in the midst of a fitness revolution. That might be a slight exaggeration; however, the interest and enthusiasm for these types of activities is at an all-time high, in spite of the near 40 degree heat we have been experiencing, maybe not in the last week or two, but certainly in months before.
Generally, most attention goes to children and sport; however, the state of adult health is a huge issue throughout this nation, and in Katherine we are starting to do something about it. Boot camp is now averaging at least 30 per session, with sometimes as many as 40. We have at least three, and maybe more teams, which equates to about 15-20 people, entering the Blood, Sweat and Fears obstacle course in Darwin in May. We have gone from one entrant in the international Natural Bodybuilding Association’s bodybuilding competition to five this year. Further, there has been interest from at least three men who have the intention of joining up next year. That would mean the Katherine contingent would make up one fifth of the whole line-up from the Northern Territory. How good is that? It is another example of Katherine punching above its weight.
There is a gym circuit class that was started on a Monday. This used to get four or five people but quickly grew to 10 or 12 and now there are 20-22 people attending and the gym room is busting at the seams. About five weeks ago, a run around the low-level loop on a Monday night commenced. In a short time that has grown to 12 adults and four children meeting to run around our beautiful river tracks. All this, of course, is on top of the efforts by individuals and those who attend the YMCA and the Tindal gym.
I need to mention that this quiet revolution is being driven by a number of people but, in particular, I want to mention a young lady by the name of Kirsten Engels. Kirsten is a driven individual who should be congratulated for helping loads of people in Katherine reach their fitness goals. Kirsten organised for one of the top Australian trainers in bodybuilding, Ingrid Barclay, of Body Conquest Geelong, to come to Katherine to hold a competition workshop, which happened last week. The most exciting of all is that she brought with her one of Australia’s best female competitors, Renata Stojanovski, who, in 2012, came fourth in the universe athletic division and holds plenty of national titles as well. Renata has been in the bodybuilding industry as a competitor, judge, and trainer for 25 years. On the day, six women and two men attended the all-day bodybuilding seminar; five of those will compete in May. Another 30 people joined the group for three hours of nutrition, and there were one-on-one sessions which sold out in about 30 minutes of advertising. Ingrid and Renata also held a mixture of nutrition and competition posing sessions all day long. Suffice it to say, the weekend was a raving success.
As far as trainers go, we are working on that, too. Kirsten has four others studying for their Certificate III and IV in Fitness, and she is qualified to Certificate IV Workplace Training so is now able to sign off many of these trainees on their modules.
We will keep ticking along and see if we can make Katherine the healthiest town in the Northern Territory. It is very exciting, and I say that genuinely because in this day and age when there is so much negativity around and we are all worried about alcohol consumption and many of the big health issues, to have something like this poke its head up and say, ‘Here, look at me as an example of some of the good things happening around the Territory’, I am excited to be speaking about it tonight.
Furthermore, I throw out a challenge. The challenge is to any other town in Australia to match us. Considering that we exercise in the extreme heat, the drop-dead humidity, and the feedback is that the boot camp running in Katherine is one the hardest around. The ladies who visited Katherine last week were completely and utterly exhausted, but they are raving about the place. They just love Katherine, they have fallen in love with it, and I have no doubt, and I certainly hope, they will be back.
The adult population of Katherine is facing its training goals and smashing them; and I wanted to brag about it a little on their behalf.
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, tonight I speak on two separate topics. Firstly, I want to congratulate my eight-year old cousin, Alanah, who lives in Adelaide. She is a real little pocket rocket and has just been selected to play for Contax netball team in the sub-primary category. She has been training very hard for the last three weeks to secure a position on that team and has come through with the goods as we all knew she would. She will be playing for them in the winter games and is very excited. Congratulations to her. I miss you very much and look forward to hearing about your team’s success in that competition.
On 26 January 2013, at the Palmerston Australia Day Awards and Citizenship Ceremony, 81-year old Margot Cox, a Drysdale constituent, was awarded the prestigious honour of being Palmerston’s Citizen of the Year for 2013.
Margot is a tremendous woman in the Palmerston community and is much loved by young and old. Her contribution to the fabric of the Northern Territory is rich and humbling. I have to thank Margot for sharing her life story with me so this evening I can share her story with the Territory. I spent two hours with Margot and will endeavour to do her life story justice in this adjournment speech. However, it is highly likely I will continue tomorrow.
Margot’s Northern Territory adventure of a lifetime began on 9 September 1951 when she arrived in Katherine with her mother. Margot had come from Toowoomba where she was a much loved trainee nurse. I am informed Margot was the matron’s pet and was offered a leave of absence from her role as her resignation was not accepted. Margot accepted the leave of absence, but was never to return. Margot was just 20-years old at that time.
Margot and her mother had moved to Katherine to live with her aunty and uncle who part owned Moroak Station with Les MacFarlane. The very next day, 10 September 1951, Margot met a roadworks grader and a man named Paddy O’Connor. Little did Margot know this roadworks grader was her future husband to be, Fred Cox, whom she affectionately refers to as Freddie.
Margot wanted to continue with her nursing training and travelled to Darwin to pursue her career; however, there were no vacancies. She travelled back to Katherine and was promptly proposed to by roadworks grader, Fred Cox. Margot accepted his proposal.
In those days, Margot had to collect the mail at Mataranka. An urgent telegram was waiting for her asking that she immediately return to Darwin Hospital. Fred did not want to waste any time in getting married, but Margot returned to Darwin Hospital to speak with the matron. As Margot climbed the stairs of the Darwin Hospital on her way to see the matron, the dispenser called out to her uncle, who was accompanying her. The dispenser called, ‘Is that your niece?’ When Margot’s uncle acknowledged, the dispenser said, ‘I want to see her before she goes up there’. The dispenser promptly offered Margot a job in the hospital dispensary. During Margot’s time in Darwin she lived with Earl James’ mother and father.
Margot’s love for Fred was indefeasible, and she returned to Katherine to marry the love of her life on 10 May 1952. Margot recounted that Fred and she had been working through an invite list for the wedding, but Katherine being the small intimate community it was then, were told invitations were a waste of time because everyone would come anyway. Margot commented to me it was ‘Territory-style’.
Fred being a road grader meant he and Margot were swiftly off on their honeymoon which, unbeknown to her at the time, would be a honeymoon that would form part of the history of the Northern Territory. Margot said to me, ‘I went bush with Fred two days after our wedding. He and his mate were grading the road up to Arnhem Land’. Fred and Margot and Fred’s mate, Ian McLean, left Katherine with the task of grading the road from Maranboy turnoff to Mainoru Station. At that time, Margot was not yet a domestic goddess and struggled to cook meals for her new husband and Ian, let alone under the conditions she found herself in, a far cry from the dispensary.
They set off from Katherine in an ex-army truck, clapped out caravan and grader in tow. The caravan was missing a window and her kitchen consisted of an old ex-army oven that had a side extension on which you could fry food or boil a billy. They slept on swags as the caravan was too small to sleep in. They carried their own water supply in a furphy tank and used an oil copper boiler for washing day and a tin tub in which they had hot baths.
Margot was a smart woman and would always get to the bath first, leaving the boys with the dirty water, and who could blame her – ladies first.
They also carried a collapsible table and seats, drums of petrol, diesel and oil. They were laden with bags of flour, sugar, potatoes, onions and other staples such as enough tinned food to last them at least one month.
While Margot was not the natural domestic goddess - and how could anyone blame her when she was in constant battle with the crows and the weevils - she learnt to make bread in a hurry. In time, Margot was baking cakes and biscuits and all sorts of treats with the very barest of essentials under the harshest of conditions. She was a pioneer on a journey to the middle of nowhere with the love of her life, paving the future of the Territory by delivering roads to Mainoru, and later Bulman.
Over time, the caravan was upgraded and it even contained a double bed which acted as a perfect storage facility for their food supplies. Margot also had a kerosene fridge, which was very fickle to get right and would continue to smoke for days and days. She was kept company during the long, lonely days by her gramophone and 20 records. She went out on the roads with Fred only once. On that occasion, the grass was so thick and so high that Fred could not see the large ditch they plunged into. Needless to say, that was enough for her.
Fresh meat and supplies were few and far between. Every three weeks or so, one of the Aboriginal boys working on the stations would drop them a sugar bag of meat. In return, they enjoyed the fruits of her newly-acquired skill of baking. The Aboriginal boys were their lifeline as they would walk from the stations to not only deliver food, but messages and supplies.
I would like to read part of Margot’s recount of her life story:
Fred and Margot had four lovely children, Alfred Roy, Eric James, Cyril John, and Janelle Ann, in five short years. All four children were born in Katherine Hospital. The maternity ward in those days consisted of beds on the verandah of the building and the birthing suite consisted of four walls and four doors. Their family home was located on Second Street in Katherine on the half-acre block of land Fred had purchased a few years prior to meeting Margot. Their home was where the Katherine Furniture Shop now is. Their home was modest; it had no ceiling or fans. It was made of corrugated iron and had a front door that was 20 foot wide and made of calico. The walls did not meet the floor so as to allow ventilation throughout the house; however, whilst these gaps allowed the breeze to enter, so too did they allow the rats and the snakes.
Margot shared a story with me about the time a rat plague invaded the house. A mother rat had decided, at one point, that the clothes basket in the bathroom would be the optimum place to have her litter - an interesting experience for Margot, but only one of many.
Roy, Eric, Cyril and Janelle were all schooled in Katherine, albeit in difficult and isolated educational circumstances. When the children were in high school, Margot would happily work as a supervisor in Fred’s cousin’s shop at the Katherine Store.
Fred was born in Pine Creek and had a large family. He left school at the age of 11 and worked on the railway. On his 21st birthday on 3 March, it was pelting rain, but he had his damper and corned beef in his saddle bag and he was happy. He would often tell Margot stories about the Chinese families of Pine Creek and the gold rush - stories of how the Chinese used to put gold in the coffins of their dead as a way of sending gold back to their families in China.
Fred also worked in the mines in those early days and, unfortunately, like so many others, he suffered from emphysema for much of his life. I will continue tomorrow.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, tonight I congratulate local multicultural groups for organising some fantastic events over the last month. Out on the Wanguri campaign trail I had the opportunity to attend some terrific events in our community that celebrated the cultural diversity of Darwin.
Being a new hand at being a candidate, I was overwhelmed at how welcoming the local groups were and was impressed by the attendance and the organisation of these events. The first event I was at was the Australia Day Fun run. This Australia Day was the best one I have had in years. I went along to the run first thing in the morning and did the 4 km jog with the thousands of other participants, and had a great time there sweating it out. Congratulations to the Australia Day Council on a professionally run event. It was great to see people of all ages and fitness levels having a go. It was also terrific to see many multicultural groups assisting with the water along the track, again highlighting what a multicultural place we have here.
Later that afternoon I had the pleasure of attending a celebration organised by the Darwin Malayalee Association at the water gardens. It celebrated Indian Republic Day and Australia Day together. It was a truly dual celebration where we started with the Australian and the Indian national anthems. We had Australian and Indian flag raising, unlike any flag raising ceremony I had ever seen before - the flags hitting the top of the mast, opening up, and dropping a beautiful array of flowers. It was a beautiful sight during sunset.
The highlight of that event for me was the stories the young children shared with us. They gave their views on comparisons between Australia Day and Indian Republic Day. It was clear that these children were proud Australians, proud Indians, and proud Territorians. Then this was finished off by a sausage sizzle. I congratulate the association’s President, Neethi Ashok, and the committee, on organising this wonderful event.
The next event I attended that evening was OzFusion at the Cypriot Club. That is what I call a real party and a real celebration of our diversity. We saw groups performing from around the globe: African drummers, Bollywood dancers, Tongan dancers, Sri Lanka dancers, Filipino jamming bands, just to name a few of the acts. The place was packed and the energy level in the room was amazing; everyone had a big smile on their face, and when the night was finishing there were still people on the dance floor which - a real indication that it was a terrific night.
The organisers and the entertainment should be commended. OzFusion celebrates what Darwin is about and celebrates our cultural diversity. Well done to the Multicultural Council of the NT, Melaleuca Refugee Centre, the Australia Day Council, the City of Darwin and the Cypriot community; top work on organising a top event.
I was also fortunate enough to attend Chinese New Year functions a few weeks ago. The first event was held by the Vietnamese community to celebrate the New Year. The new hall at Marrara is a great facility and the community must be commended on their hard work to raise the funds to contribute towards building it. The previous Labor government assisted them with land and the Darwin Vietnamese community now has an amazing facility to call their own. You can see there is real potential to build on it in the future, and it is another wonderful multicultural establishment for the community.
There was a great turnout there as well. Formalities started with prayers, followed by the Australian and Vietnamese national anthems. Then we watched a presentation on the Vietnam War and held a minute’s silence.
I also had the honour and good fun of being invited up on the stage with the Leader of the Opposition to present the small children with some New Year’s gifts of red envelopes containing some pocket money. That was a real treat for me; I had not done that before and I thank them for that opportunity. Entertainment soon followed with some terrific singers and a whole mix of songs in English and Vietnamese. It was a great event, and I thank Thien Lee and Bac Lam and the Vietnamese community of Darwin for the opportunity to attend.
We then moved on to the Chinese Timorese club to celebrate Chinese New Year there. Thank you to Rui Mu for the wonderful welcome and terrific food. There was more fantastic entertainment that evening and I discovered the lead singer of the fabulous band was the former member for Jingili, Rick Setter’s wife. She is a wonderful singer, a true entertainer. I hear she has a CD out for anyone who might be interested in having a listen to a great voice. I must admit it was a bit of a time warp for me to see old fashion dancing happening, but it was a delightful experience and one I am grateful to have had the opportunity to attend.
I felt honoured to share these celebrations with our local multicultural groups. I congratulate all the organisers and the performers on their great work, and I am looking forward to attending many more of these events as the new member for Wanguri.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, this evening I want to talk about Question Time today and a question I asked the Chief Minister. It was about the contracts signed in the bush representing election commitments and promises to the bush, and the question was very simple: what is happening, what costs have been put to these projects, when does the Chief Minister plan to deliver these projects, and how will they be delivered? The Chief Minister talked about framing the contracts and displaying them on his desk, then he passed the question to the Minster for Infrastructure.
The Minster for Infrastructure took his usual approach and went into a rant and tirade of abuse and talked about pulling bitumen out of his pocket, but did not really talk about what this government is planning to do about fulfilling those election commitments in the bush. In that rant, the Minister for Infrastructure bellowed across the Chamber that Labor had done nothing on the Port Keats Road, that Labor had done nothing in its term, and went into quite an interesting rant that the Labor government had done nothing. He did not answer the question which was focusing on that important contract made with the people from Wadeye and those constituents in the Daly.
I did some research, and tonight we can hear the story of what Labor did on the Port Keats Road in the last couple of years, from the minister. We will hear the CLP Minister for Infrastructure tell this House what the previous Labor government did for the people of Wadeye and Nauiyu and other communities around that area. I will read from the National Indigenous Times of Wednesday 23 January 2013. The headline says ‘$24 Million Port Keats Road Improvements Complete for Wet’. The story and image is supplied by Bruce Cutler, and I will read from this article.
For the record, there is a wonderful photo of the Country Liberal Party minister for Construction and the federal member for Lingiari, the Honourable Warren Snowdon, cutting a ribbon with many kids and big smiling faces. That was a great story in the National Indigenous Times and it was good to have the story told of what the Labor government did in that area by the CLP minister for Construction.
I also add that the previous member for Daly was a great advocate, a hard-working local member and one of the true lobbyists for these improvements in road infrastructure delivered by the Northern Territory Labor government in partnership with the Australian government for the people who live in this area.
There are also considerable other road maintenance projects further west of the area where the $24m Port Keats Road improvements were conducted. That was, basically, areas I travelled across by road with the member for Daly. He took me there on a number of occasions to show me that area and these areas of road were identified for flood mitigation work. They were to be raised and sheeted and, all up, there was around 30 km of really hard areas of the Port Keats Road that were to be upgraded. The nature of the roads upgrade program was to target those troublesome areas to provide better flood immunity and to, eventually, get to a position where these remote roads would be ready to seal.
The question for the Chief Minister, essentially, was what has the Country Liberal Party done in continuing this work? The question was not answered. It was delivered with a tirade of abuse and some sensational politicking, but it is nice to get back to the basics and really get the truth out there in the adjournment debate.
Now I will pose the next question: what is new from the Country Liberal Party? The Chief Minister tells us the Country Liberal Party has been in government for six months, and the minister for Construction is one superman over on that side claiming the $24m Port Keats Road improvement program, but neglecting to tell us, during Question Time, anything about it. The essential question is: what is new from the CLP? We want to hear about the new infrastructure in the bush. We want to hear about the Chief Minister’s priority and planning and we want to hear about the costing and the budget allocations. We are really keen to see these projects go ahead because, as discussed in that story by the minister for Construction, there were untold opportunities in training to employment and engaging local people in economic developments.
Let us hear it, Chief Minister. Let us really celebrate this together. You have a considerable amount of election commitments and promises to the bush to fulfil. Let us talk about it; let us not be shy. If a politician makes promises, then people expect them to be delivered. The people in the bush have long memories and are waiting for the Country Liberal Party to deliver on their election promises from the 2012 election.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of Year 11 Darwin High School students who will be participating in the Step Up Be Heard Program this year, accompanied by Anita Barrow. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to you to Parliament House.
Members: Hear, hear!
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Step Up Be Heard Program
Step Up Be Heard Program
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, Darwin High School students are participating in our Step Up Be Heard Program, a revised Youth Parliament. In coming weeks, students will develop their own election campaigns, then the Electoral Commission will oversee an election. The final parliament will debate in this Chamber in late April. All members are more than welcome to participate and attend if they can.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Standing Orders – Question Time
Standing Orders – Question Time
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received complaints and concerns from all parts of this parliament. I have heard the concerns which I share. I will be writing to the Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee, Hon John Elferink, asking that Question Time be looked at with the possibility of reforms. For example, in the House of Representatives there is one point of order on relevance per question. I will ask the Chairman to report back to this Chamber in regard to Question Time and any possible reforms that may or may not be required.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Warnings to Members
Warnings to Members
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, perhaps I have not made it clear that when I put members on a warning, I do not expect to hear interjections such as, ‘Chuck him out’. By putting a member on a warning, I am not casting any aspersion upon them as a member or a minister; it is because they are showing disrespect to the Chair of this Chamber, which is inappropriate.
I assure honourable members it is not a personal direction at any member on any side, or the Independent; it is because respect needs to be shown to the Chair of this Chamber and this parliament. It is my job to ensure that respect is shown to all sides, all members and all participants of this parliament.
MOTION
Amendment of Standing Orders
Amendment of Standing Orders
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that during the current session of the Assembly that Standing Order 109(3)(b) be reworded in the following terms:
(b) the time for the answer of each question shall be sufficient to allow for the minister to provide an appropriate answer.
Before walking into the House today, I informed you we would be deferring this motion until tomorrow. I note the behaviour of opposition members which concerns us on this side of the House has not, in any way, changed. We noted the one warning five seconds from the end of Question Time.
Nevertheless, we will defer this, but we will bring it on tomorrow if we remain unsatisfied with a resultant improvement from the members opposite in relation to their conduct and their ongoing breaches of standing orders wilfully, deliberately, and with intent of mischief.
Madam Speaker, I move that this debate be adjourned until tomorrow morning ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! The member for Fannie Bay is on his feet and should get the call. The member for Port Darwin did not seek leave to continue his remarks; he has made a mistake and the member for Fannie Bay, under standing orders, should get the call.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fannie Bay.
Ms Walker: You just had the call, member for Fannie Bay. It has been acknowledged.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, please continue.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. I seek leave, if it is so precious to you, to continue my remarks at a later date.
Leave denied.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! Yet another occasion where the government is trying to gag the opposition. They bring forward a motion, we seek to speak to that motion and the government is trying to gag us.
Mr Elferink: Happy to bring it on now.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: You do not have the call, member for Karama.
Mr Elferink: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, we will go ahead with this.
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! You might need to seek advice from the Clerk, but my understanding is once you seek leave to continue remarks at a later date you conclude your remarks and do not get a second opportunity to talk, you have lost the call.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, continue.
Mr ELFERINK: It is incredible, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. Talk about leading with your chin.
I have repeatedly said in this House that if they continue to conduct themselves as they do regarding standing orders in Question Time, I would bring on a motion. They have chosen to ignore that. We gave notice of a motion yesterday. You would think they would read the Notice Paper and pay attention to the motion we brought forward yesterday. They have not.
We are up to about 60 or 65 frivolous points of order in the last couple of weeks in this House. That is just abominable, dreadful behaviour.
I came into this House and said, ‘Rather than bringing on this motion today we will defer it until tomorrow’. Because they are trying to make and win a little point about how this House proceeds, what they have effectively done is brought on the debate right now. Rather than have negotiation behind the scenes, so they can make a point they are happy to lose the war for the sake of winning a skirmish. Good luck to them ...
Ms Lawrie: Seriously? You want to gag opposition!
Mr ELFERINK: It shows you how immature …
Mr Vowles: Gagging us again.
Mr ELFERINK: I would like to hear from the members opposite what gag is in this. It does not, in any way, deprive the members opposite of an opportunity to call points of order. It does not, in any way, deprive members opposite of an opportunity to ask a question. It does not deprive the members opposite of any capacity to change their questions in any way. Where is the gag?
I point out to members that the motion changes the three-minute time limit for a ministerial answer to allow sufficient time for the minister to provide an appropriate answer. The reason for that is we spend 30 seconds or a minute in every answer having to watch the Speaker deal with points of order which do not conform or in any way comply with the standing orders of this House. They are continually told not to do it by the Speaker and, nevertheless, they continue to do it.
Before I walked into this House two days ago, I had one of my people upstairs do me the courtesy of noting how many points of order were called by the members opposite. We put it together over three sitting days and the incredible answer is in that period we saw 50 points of order raised which the Speaker responded to by saying, ‘There is no point of order’. That is how this works with Question Time.
We have tolerated it despite our warnings. However, it was brought to a head most recently when the Chief Minister was explaining to this House the effects of the former failed Treasurer’s raid on the kitty in relation to certain community grants. Unfortunately, he was unable to finish his answer in the allotted time by virtue of the fact that repeated points of order were being called by the members opposite which enabled them to engage in a scurrilous, wicked and deliberately deceptive campaign in the public domain. They are good at scandal, wickedness, and deception. Unfortunately, we, on this side of the House, do not believe that in the interests of Northern Territorians we should allow government to effectively be silenced by the tactic of using a point of order to drown out the ministerial answers.
As the Leader of Government Business, I have not been silent on this issue. I have raised it not once, not twice, but at least a dozen times, and warned members opposite we would do something to intervene. Nevertheless, if you look at the last effort from the members opposite during this Question Time the problem has not abated. In fact, it has not even stayed the same. The problem has become amplified under this Opposition Leader.
They have no regard for the rules of this House. They have no regard for the rules of civility generally. We, as a government, will not tolerate an opposition which will use the rules of this House to impede the function of this House. The function of this House is at least, in part, to inform Territorians, through the doctrine of responsible government, what is going on. I remind honourable members who may have forgotten what the doctrine says: the executive is answerable to the parliament, which means the government must come into this parliament under that doctrine and answer to Territorians. Hence, the capacity for members opposite to ask a question. Hence, Question Time.
One would presume if a question is asked, it is because it seeks an answer. When we endeavour to provide answers to the questions asked, we hear continual points of order. We hear continual points of order because they do not like the answers. But, not liking an answer is not a reason to use the rules of this House to undermine the doctrine of responsible government.
We, as a government, as part of point five of our five-point plan in accountability, will continue to ensure we are accountable to the people of the Northern Territory by an appropriate change to the standing orders to enable sufficient time to allow a minister to answer a question, despite the tactic of the members opposite.
This government will try to keep its answers as close to the three-minute limit as we possibly can as a matter of convention. However, if those three minutes are eroded by members opposite in their continual abuse of the point of order, that will have the effect of extending the minister’s time so the minister can complete his answer so the public of the Northern Territory may be appropriately informed.
There is no gag, there is no silencing. It actually means the responsibility falls upon the opposition to ensure that sufficient numbers of questions are asked. If their conduct reflects a reasonable approach to this House without calling tedious, repetitive, and often mischievous points of order, then the requisite number of questions will continue to be answered. However, if they want to engage in conduct where we see a minister on their feet for 10 minutes because that minister is not being given a fair opportunity to comply with his or her duty in the doctrine of responsible government, then so be it!
If this motion passes, as I hope it will ...
Mr Wood: I will be very surprised if it does not.
Mr ELFERINK: I always give credit to this House, member for Nelson, because it should work for the benefit of Territorians. Currently, because of the mischief which is being conducted by the members opposite, that benefit is not being realised.
Madam Speaker, as far as we, on this side of the House, are concerned, the government must move to protect its duty to report fulsomely and wholesomely to the people of the Northern Territory. The ball is now in the opposition’s court. If they choose to conduct themselves poorly, then, as a result of that conduct alone, they can expect answers to questions will be longer than they necessarily have to be. The ball is in the opposition’s court and I am interested in what they have to say.
Mr McCarthy: Do you call that punishment, John?
Mr ELFERINK: No, it is not punishment.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, we are not surprised the CLP’s response to the Wanguri by-election of only three or four days ago is to break another promise. The CLP promised to be open and accountable, now they are seeking to change standing orders so they can answer fewer questions in Question Time. We are not surprised they are breaking another promise, because they cannot surprise us anymore; they cannot disappoint the voters of the Northern Territory any more than they already have. We are not surprised their response to the Wanguri by-election result is to change the rules of parliament to answer fewer questions in Question Time ...
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! You are correct. I was on the booth and all they were talking to me about was points of order in Question Time. It was a very clear, loud message I heard on the day about points of order in Question Time. Congratulations for bringing that forward.
Mr GUNNER: We are not surprised their decision is to change the rules of standing orders to answer fewer questions and provide less scrutiny in parliament. We are not surprised that is how they choose to conduct their business. They are hypocrites. This is what they asked for when they were in opposition, along with the Independent member for Nelson; this is their reform. The lesson of this CLP is it is one thing in opposition and another thing in government. They will say one thing before the election and do another thing afterwards. This is their reform, they now do not want the scrutiny and want to answer fewer questions in Question Time.
Where did we learn about points of order? We learnt from the government when they were in opposition. The member for Port Darwin was king. The CLP still holds all the records. The member for Darwin said we raised 50 points of order in three days. We are trying to meet the current government’s standard, because in one day they raised 27 points of order. We cannot even hope to compete. We are a little over 15 a day.
The record for the most frivolous point of order sits with the member for Port Darwin. He has the award. I do not know if he has a trophy in his cabinet, but he said, ‘A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! Could we ban this minister from red cordial during lunch, please?’ That was his point of order. They hold the record for the most points of order in one day, and for the most frivolous.
We are not surprised they are choosing to change standing orders to provide less scrutiny in this House so their ministers can talk for as long as they want in answering a question, and they have to answer fewer questions in this Chamber.
We are surprised they will remove a protection of the three-minute rule for their gaffe-prone Cabinet. I am stunned the member for Port Darwin would use the example of the Chief Minister answering the question on Glenti. He said there were community events under threat and listed them. There is only one government at the moment, and the only threat to the Glenti is the government. They started the rumour by saying community events were under threat and then complained about it spreading.
It was probably the worst dorothy dixer we have heard in the history of this Chamber, and they used it as an example. We would welcome the member for Blain, the Chief Minister, talking for 20 minutes on that. To say there were community events under threat was an extraordinary dorothy dixer to use in this Chamber. There is only one government in this Territory that could threaten these community events. The Chief Minister told us about threatening them and then complained that people were upset. It was an extraordinary own goal from a dorothy dixer.
Now they will remove the time limit format so the Chief Minister can stuff his answers up for as long as he wants. They are removing a protection for their Cabinet.
The member for Port Darwin is quite smart. He carries the government on his shoulders by doing most of the work in the Chamber. The other side does not necessarily appreciate that. On this side we do; we see the amount of work he does. He knows this is a protection but he has been asked to remove it by his party. It is extraordinary; he does all the grunt and grime work. They might not appreciate you, John, but we appreciate the amount of work you do. We do not agree with much of what you do, but we know you work hard. We believe you understand you are removing a protection for your gaffe-prone Cabinet.
We are not surprised you are breaking another promise, but we are surprised you are removing protections for your ministers because they make many mistakes. Now they will make more because they will be off the chain. We are expecting some very long answers after these reforms come through, and some very bad answers. We are quite surprised you are choosing to go down this path.
We have an amendment to the motion, if you want to bring it on. I am not sure if you will choose to move it today or take it to the Standing Orders Committee, but I have an amendment which I am happy to move now.
I move an amendment to the motion in the following terms. Before the words proposed to be substituted by the Leader of Government Business, Standing Order 109(3)(a) be amended to:
(a) the time allowed for questions shall be sufficient for the member to ask the question in an appropriate manner.
Obviously, if they go down this path and change how answers are given, then it should also be applied to how questions are asked.
That is the amendment we are moving from the floor, or to take it to Standing Orders Committee, as has also been flagged by the member for Port Darwin. That is my amendment I have moved it; I believe I need to sign that now?
Mr Elferink: Yes, and circulate it.
Mr GUNNER: I have signed it. Our amendment to the motion is that what applies to answers should apply to questions, if they choose to go down this path. We are not surprised they are breaking an election promise; we are surprised they are removing a protection.
Our position, member for Port Darwin, is if you choose to go down this path, what applies to answers given in this House should also apply to the questions. We can continue to deal with it on the floor here or it can go to the Standing Orders Committee. That decision is in your hands.
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! Can I get clarification on what we are now debating, please?
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: We will speak to the original question and the amendment.
Mr MILLS (Chief Minister): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I believe they make too much of this and read too little into it.
Mr Wood: It sounds like Shakespeare.
Mr MILLS: Yes, it does. There are standing orders which need to guide and govern our discussions in this Chamber. As a part of your response to this motion you say it is an attempt for us to answer fewer questions and be less accountable. It is, in fact, the opposite.
Through the misuse of the standing orders provision by the opposition, we have been prohibited from answering the said question because of your tactics. Our concern is that the points of order being raised are clearly not points of order but a mechanism to prevent the government from giving a response. If you are concerned about the opportunity for government to be accountable, that is what this is about. It is to ensure government has the capacity to answer the question because the tactic of the opposition is the opposite.
I reflect on your fine defence of this measure to correct this matter for which you have brought the need for correction, where you used an historical reference. There were a great many points of order at a particular point in time. If your memory is clear on that, it was when the former Speaker was being quite specific about the need for answers to be relevant. If you recall, the former government would go all over the place, and those points of order were to ensure they stayed on track. By the use of those points of order, we were able to move on.
We now have the misuse of points of order. The question is for the Speaker to consider means to deal with this problem. We are offering a solution. If you really want to hold the government to account, do not use the tactics you are using, use a real point of order. Hold them to account and provide a warning if that trespass continues. The government can be held to account and given the opportunity to answer questions properly without being hindered in so doing.
My colleague, the Leader of Government Business, has said - and this is our position - we are not seeking unlimited time to speak. We are seeking the opportunity to speak and not be blocked by the misuse of parliamentary process. That is what this is about; there is a problem which needs to be fixed, so we propose the fix is to give members the opportunity to complete their remarks. We are not using this as a means to speak for as long as we like; however, at the moment we have three minutes and you are using about half of that with frivolous points of order which need to be pulled up. Let us get on and ensure we run our business well.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, this is a very important debate and one we should all be concerned about. I will give my reasons why.
The introduction of this motion today shows complete disregard by the Attorney-General for the conventional process of bringing amendments to the Standing Orders Committee for discussion before approval is given by parliament. I read from the website of the Legislative Assembly, Committees - Standing Orders:
- The Standing Orders Committee inquires into, reports on and reviews possible amendments and additions to Standing Orders to facilitate the efficient and effective operation of the Parliament of the Northern Territory.
When Standing Order 109(3)(b) was introduced it said the answer to each question should not exceed three minutes. That amendment was made after it was considered by the Standing Orders Committee. This was supported by the Country Liberal Party members for Sanderson and Greatorex in their submission to the Standing Orders Committee on 23 January 2009. They said:
- We, therefore, propose that a time for asking and answering questions be limited. This means that, along with tighter relevance provisions, ministers will have to answer questions specifically and faster. It also provides less time for government filibustering. To this end we propose the following:
- Limit the length of question to one minute and answers to three minutes.
There was bipartisan support for these changes which have worked well since they were introduced into parliament.
For the government to bring this directly to the floor of the House without first taking it to the Standing Orders Committee shows the arrogance of a government which cares little for proper process and dictatorially rides over any opposition. It is an example of the government acting like a spoilt child when it did not get its way.
It is also a deliberate slap in the face to the Speaker who is the arbiter of proceedings during Question Time. The government is saying to you, Madam Speaker, ‘We do not like your interpretation of the rules, especially in relation to points of order, so we will change the rules so your ruling will be inconsequential’. Perhaps, Madam Speaker, you are given the cold shoulder by your party for not toeing the party line, such as your outspoken comments on the closure of the Humpty Doo Fire Station.
My first concern is the deliberate circumventing by the Attorney-General of the traditional process of bringing changes to standing orders through the Standing Orders Committee first, and then to parliament. Unfortunately, this is what is happening today. I hope the Attorney-General changes his mind but, knowing the Attorney-General, and as he said in his opening speech, I doubt if he will do that. Regardless of all the philosophical quotes he may recite and how much he espouses the importance of parliamentary procedures and our democratic principles, he knows he has the numbers. It is now the case of the power and the glory.
What is the Attorney-General trying to do and why? He has become annoyed by what he considers frivolous points of order which did not seem to be a problem when he was in opposition. He called 23 points of order during Question Time on 27 March 2012, but he is upset now because he is in government and does not like the number of points of order the opposition is raising.
He also does not like the interpretation the Speaker has ruled on the points of order. To get around that he changes the rules. To add insult to injury, he avoids the convention of first taking this matter to the Standing Orders Committee, thereby avoiding a potential defeat because the Speaker sits on that committee. If the Speaker voted against this change he would not have the numbers, so he has conveniently avoided the process as he could see this motion might easily be defeated in the committee stage and that would be an embarrassment. This is cunning, Attorney-General, and you get your own way.
However, this is a bad sign of how government should rule. If there had been a chance to discuss this at the Standing Orders Committee as a form of compromise as to what might be put forward today, perhaps this could have been achieved. For instance, I would leave the present clause as it is and allow for the clock to be stopped when there was a point of order. That would still allow three minutes for an answer.
My second major concern is what is being proposed will now take us back to the primitive and unenlightened days of Question Time under the CLP in the 1990s. I sat in that Chamber many times and listened to Question Time, and did waffle take over!
There will be a reduced number of questions, and Question Time will just be a time for the minister to drag out a question to avoid scrutiny. The words used by the Attorney-General, ‘an appropriate answer’, will be interpreted so broadly that Question Time will become a farce, and long-winded answers the order of the day.
If we need to define what ‘appropriate’ means, in the Macquarie Dictionary, ‘appropriate’ means ‘suitable or fitting for that particular purpose’ - very broad. Government ministers will love that interpretation!
There are too many frivolous points of order. I listen and I cannot see where they sit, necessarily, with some of our standing order numbers. However, we have a Speaker; let the Speaker decide on that. This amendment shows a total disregard for the committee system. It is the Attorney-General’s need to vent his frustration at what has been happening by punishing the Speaker because of her independence. Why could the concern of the Attorney-General have not gone to the Standing Orders Committee to look at other ways of addressing this problem? Example: limit the number of points of order; stop the clock when there is a point of order; or have a minimum number of questions that have to be asked. But, no, we have this way. This is the Attorney-General’s way or nothing else. If you do not like it, you can lump it.
It is also amazing that when government was in opposition it called for changes to parliamentary procedures, more time for scrutinising the government at estimates, and an opening up of the Council of Territory Cooperation for questioning of ministers. It is now a different story since it won government. They change the rules to suit themselves, not for the benefit of the parliament.
We had a bad law pass through parliament the other day with the mandatory sentencing bill, now we have a bad standing order being rushed through, not based on what is good for the people but what is good for the government. It looks as if power has gone to the heads of some in government, and that is a worrying sign for this parliament.
It might surprise you, Attorney-General, I am concerned about the number of points of order because I also like to listen to questions. My real issue is we should be taking this to the Standing Orders Committee and discussing it with a range of options, if this is a real issue. I believe it is an issue, but this is not the right process to achieve that. Basically, it says you do not accept the Speaker’s rulings on these things and that it should go through the Standing Orders Committee and then come back to parliament, as I believe it should.
Whilst I have some sympathy for what you are doing, I do not agree with the process of what has been put forward. It undermines the committee system. A simple amendment you bring forward, without any choice of options or alternatives, is a bad way to introduce changes to the standing orders.
My big concern is that, although I heard the Chief Minister say this will give ministers time to answer questions properly - and I accept that - this will be abused because the very wording is the wording you, as Attorney-General and lawmaker minister, would love, because it says, ‘sufficient to allow for the minister to provide an appropriate answer’. Who will rule on whether it is sufficient to allow for the minister to provide an appropriate answer?
If I make a point of order to Madam Speaker and say, ‘Madam Speaker, this is not an appropriate answer’, I am sure, member for Port Darwin, you will pull out the Macquarie Dictionary - probably any other dictionary that relates to this matter - and say, ‘The answer is suitable and fitting for this particular purpose’. Therefore, we will not be able to restrain a person from carrying on for more than three minutes. There is no guarantee this will not do what you are saying it will do; that is, allow the same number of questions we have now to be achieved.
I see it as a retrograde step that goes back to Question Time in parliament in the 1990s. I used to walk out of here because I used to hear ministers go for I do not how long, just filling in time. The greatest change we brought to this parliament was introducing time limits.
I am all for some way of controlling frivolous points of order. That is where, through the Standing Orders Committee, it is raised with the Speaker. This seems to be a backdoor way of trying to bring about those changes. I would rather the normal process be considered and that members of the Standing Orders Committee bring forth possible ways of achieving what you are trying to do. Then we can come back to parliament, hopefully, with an agreed formula for any improvements needed.
In this process, we have to lump it or like it. As you said, you have the numbers. At least in the Standing Orders Committee we could have a discussion without having the confinement of trying to debate in parliament where you get one say and that is it. The advantage of the Standing Orders Committee is I can debate to and fro with any member on that committee. We can go on for as long as we like, and, hopefully, come up with a sensible solution. We cannot do it now because this is a done deal ...
Mr Elferink: You might be surprised.
Mr WOOD: Attorney-General, I would be happy to be surprised. I was surprised today about the $20 MVR fee. I am rapt. I am putting a case that I hope will convince you. As I said, I am not opposed to some tightening of the procedures, but I have faith in the Speaker because that is why we have a Speaker. I have faith in the committee system, which is there to allow us to debate these issues without the formality and restrictions you have debating here. I am just putting a case to say do not go down this path. Let us debate it through the Standing Orders Committee and see if we can come back with something we can all agree on for the betterment of debate in this parliament. That is what we are trying to achieve.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I was not going to participate in this debate, but I have reconsidered and decided I will. I come from the perspective of someone who has sat in that Chair, Madam Speaker. I appreciate the challenges of doing the job of Speaker, Deputy Speaker or Acting Deputy Speaker.
There was a period in the final sittings week in 2011 when Speaker Aagaard, due to ill health, was unable to take the chair for Question Time in this Chamber. For the first time in my years as Deputy Speaker, I took the Chair for Question Time. I have been back through those three Question Times. On the second day I chaired Question Time, on 30 November, I delivered a little homily, Madam Speaker, as you have today, warning members about the very large volume of frivolous points of order. I do not know that it did much good because on that day there were no fewer than 21 points of order from the then CLP opposition, most of which were quite frivolous. Featuring in those points of order were the members for Fong Lim and Katherine, there was one from the former member for Drysdale and, of course, the member for Port Darwin, included a frivolous point of order which came in some 15 seconds out from the former Chief Minister, Paul Henderson, answering a question.
The new government, now they are on those benches, wanting to turn around the standing orders because they no longer suit their needs or purposes is incredibly hypocritical. That is what we are learning and seeing from this new government. Like the member for Nelson said, the process that has been followed is disappointing. It is basically, ‘We have the numbers on this side, we have a mandate and we will do as we please’. That is essentially what the message is. That is incredibly arrogant and it is disappointing that the process is not being followed as it might be.
I support the amendment my colleague, the member for Fannie Bay, has made, and I commend that amended motion to the House, Madam Speaker.
_________________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of students of Charles Darwin University accompanied by Alan Day. On behalf of honourable member, I extend to you a warm welcome and I hope you enjoy your time at Parliament House.
Members: Hear, hear!
_________________________
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I have listened with interest to what members have had to say and I am not unmindful of it. However, I remind honourable members that when I stood before I tried to defer this motion so further discussion could be held. Because the leader of opposition business was so busy trying to win a skirmish, they potentially have set themselves up to lose the war.
I was trying to take this motion and put it forward on the Notice Paper for discussion in the future so we could deal with all of the issues which have been raised today. Unfortunately, because they were too busy being smarty pants and being clever because I moved something rather than sought leave, they forced this to be brought on.
I am not delighted at having to bluster my way through this so we can get this resolved. I have sat on the Standing Orders Committee in the term of this current Legislative Assembly and talked about exactly the things the member for Nelson has just been talking about regarding stopping the clock, because I knew if we did not go down that path, at some point in the future this would come to a head. It has now come to a head ...
Mr Westra van Holthe: That is where we are now.
Mr ELFERINK: That is where we are now. I pick up on the amendment by the members opposite in relation to questions. We do not come close to obeying standing orders when it comes to questions asked in this House:
- Questions should not contain –
(a) statements of facts or names of persons unless they are strictly necessary to render the question intelligible and can be authenticated;
- (b) arguments;
How many times do we hear an argument put to this House with a question mark tacked on the end of it?
- (c) inferences;
The current Chief Minister, the failed Treasurer – imputations. For goodness sake, how many times do we hear imputations? In almost every question.
- (d) epithets;
(e) ironical expressions; or
- (f) hypothetical matter.
Ministers should not be asked opinions to announce new policies for governments or for legal opinions. The last one is the only one we conform with, but because we enjoy free and flowing debate in this House, we tolerate standing order beaches of that nature.
I do not jump to my feet and call a point of order when I hear an argument, an inference, an imputation, epithet, or an ironical expression in every question. Do you believe I or we on this side of the House are unmindful that we have a duty to ensure this House runs in a proper fashion? We ignore standing orders as often as we obey them.
I become very frustrated when I hear members opposite talking about the hypocrisy of this government. I go back to the time when the member for Nelson was referring to answers being too long. Yes, they were way too long. Those answers were often tomes in their own right when they were printed in the Parliamentary Record.
That is why the new government, under Labor, introduced these time limits. We did not resist because it tightened up Question Time. As time has passed - and I will not point the finger at any side here - the point of order has decayed from a way of getting adjudication on the rules into a parliamentary tactic specifically designed to silence a minister.
When I went into the Standing Orders Committee the last time, I said to the members, ‘Let us find a way we can keep the answers down to three minutes, but we have to negotiate points of order’. Unfortunately, my predicted outcome when that was rejected has now arrived.
I was anxious to negotiate with the other side on this issue. Time did not permit yesterday. Time would have probably permitted today, which is why I sought to defer this motion. However, because it is about a tactic in this House rather than a result, all they were interested in was winning the tactical game. You had your win. You have won. You have brought the motion on despite the fact I was trying to give it some breathing space.
Now we find ourselves in a situation where we have to navigate through this problem today on the floor, rather than sitting down in a room out the back, sorting it out between ourselves and coming up with a solution. I would have been happy to withdraw this motion had I been able to navigate a way through this. If we had sat down in the back room and referred it to the Standing Orders Committee to deal with and address these issues as we needed, then goodness gracious me, this would all be over and we would not be wasting parliament’s time at $5000 an hour talking about Standing Order 112, Standing Order 113, etcetera.
That is the way it has been done. You have to be a little astute when you are sitting in the leader of opposition business’s chair; you have to be alive to what is going on. When the Leader of Government Business says, ‘I want to defer this and move that we hear it at a later date’ - I made a blue, big deal. I did not seek leave I made a motion; that is my crime for the morning. Yes, there is the tactic, ‘We will pick up on that and bring the motion on now’. There you go, it is on now.
I am more than happy, as I have indicated on any number of occasions, to sort this out. I have counselled, warned and complained on repeated occasions in this House about this tactic, yet I have had no comments from the other side or discussions about how we should deal with it. I am not pleased about the concept of overriding a parliamentary committee which is, effectively, what this motion would do.
I am also mindful of the many things I have had to say sitting in the leader of opposition business’s chair over the years. Irrespective of all that nonsense about us trying to ride roughshod over the House, I am prepared to have another go at this, which is what I wanted to negotiate behind the scenes before everybody went off half-cocked
Madam Speaker, if the House concurs, I seek leave to have this motion deferred indefinitely until such time as the Standing Orders Committee can look at it and report on it with a solution to the problem.
Leave granted.
PLACES OF PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENT ACT REPEAL BILL
(Serial 19)
(Serial 19)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr GILES (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to repeal the Places of Public Entertainment Act. The Places of Public Entertainment Act can be traced back to an ordinance of 1949 that was modelled on similar legislation in South Australia. The act enables a system of licensing for places of public entertainment and prescribes various matters that must be undertaken by licensees. The kinds of places of entertainment that would require licences under the act in the Territory are cinemas, stage theatres, public halls, community centres, school halls, church halls, public library meeting rooms, pinball parlours, tenpin bowing centres, skating centres, dance halls and adult shops. The act does not apply to places that are licensed under the Liquor Act.
The intent of the act is to ensure places of public entertainment have proper sanitary arrangements, are protected against the risk of fire, have appropriate firefighting equipment, provide for safe exit and sufficient means to exit in the case of a fire, and provide for the safety and convenience of the public generally.
There is other Territory legislation which covers the same sector the act seeks to regulate, most notably the Building Code of Australia, which is adopted in the Territory through the Building Act and sets the minimum standards and requirements for construction of building ensuring the latest available technology is adopted. The Building Code sets building standards on structure, fire resistance levels, access and egress, fire safety services and equipment, health and amenity, and maintenance.
Other Territory legislation includes the Electricity Reform Act and Regulations which deal with electrical installations and safety standards, the Fire and Emergency Act and Regulations which promote the prevention of fire and the safety of patrons, and the Public and Environmental Health Act and Regulations which set out the health and hygiene requirements. For this reason, administration of the act would result in duplication of the regulation of businesses that provide public entertainment.
The act is derived from the South Australian Places of Public Entertainment legislation. It is worth noting that in 1995, South Australia repealed its legislation mainly due to the fact that the ambit of regulation was covered by the Building Code.
The bill has much to recommend it as an example of sensible and considered reduction of unnecessary regulation and red tape for businesses which provide entertainment to the public. The bill will also remove outmoded legislation that is no longer required or relevant to Territorians today.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill. In closing, this is just another area where the new Country Liberals government is trying to remove bureaucracy and red tape and help businesses in the Northern Territory.
Debate adjourned.
EVIDENCE (NATIONAL UNIFORM LEGISLATION) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 16)
(Serial 16)
Continued from 5 December 2012.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I thank the Attorney-General for bringing this bill before the House. I assure you I will be on my feet briefly.
The opposition supports this bill and recognises the amendments are critical to make the Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2011 workable, and to deliver on its intent. Importantly, the bill delivers amendments which make clear that when a person has been charged with an offence, and the alleged victim is under 16 years of age, a close relative of the defendant will not be able to apply to be excused from giving evidence.
I understand, prior to these amendments, while section 12 of the act provides that every person is competent and compellable to give evidence, there are exceptions, albeit limited. By bringing in the amendments in section 19, the close relative of a defendant charged with an offence involving a child under the age of 16 will not be excused from giving evidence. An exception will not be recognised.
The evidence of a spouse, a partner, or a close relative of a defendant in cases involving children under 18 can be some of the most valuable evidence, as the Attorney-General pointed out in his second reading speech, necessary to obtain a finding of guilt.
The opposition welcomes this amendment, recognising the protection of children and prosecution of offenders causing harm to children is a key priority for the community. We support and welcome the amendments which, effectively, remove a legal loophole whereby previously close relatives could make application to be excused from giving evidence.
The amendment to right a drafting error in section 19(b) where the word ‘offender’ will be replaced by the words ‘alleged victim’ is clearly a straightforward matter which corrects what the Attorney-General labels an absurdity.
I note also the consequential amendments as outlined in the explanatory statement to the Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2011 to take into account the omission of section 19(a) and a change of drafting practice.
Madam Speaker, I thank the Attorney-General’s Office for the briefing I received on this and other bills. The opposition most certainly supports this bill and commends it to the House.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I note we are pushing up against lunch. I will be lucky to be on my feet long enough to make it to lunch. In fact, I was contemplating not even jumping and just letting it pass.
I place on the record my thanks to the shadow Attorney-General for her efforts and diligence in relation to this. Because of the way she goes about this business, taking advantage of the briefings we offer through the Office of the Attorney-General, we end up having not to deal with the technical issues but the broader issues of bills.
For example, if there is a bill they have a problem with on a principled or philosophical ground, the briefing will enable them to understand all of the technical issues, which will enable them to come into this House with an enhanced argument for their philosophical objection to something. For arguments sake, with mandatory sentencing, the members opposite came into this Chamber last week with a clear understanding of the mechanical operation of the bill. The argument was where it should be for this Chamber in relation to the ideas that were at a point of conflict.
By getting briefings, the shadow Attorney-General enables this House to run more smoothly. I commend her for that and recommend that continues. I will make certain, wherever possible and whenever requested, those briefings will continue so the business of this House can be done more effectively and professionally.
There is no philosophical point of difference on anything contained in this bill. That was clearly identified by the shadow Attorney-General, the member for Nhulunbuy. I thank her for her support for the bill. It is a commonsense bill which deals with some absurdities and a couple of other issues
Madam Speaker, there is nothing else to say other than allowing this bill to pass into the law of the Northern Territory.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill be read a third time.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Member for Brennan
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I request a leave of absence for the member for Brennan for Thursday, 21 February 2013, pursuant to Standing Order 25, to attend an oil and gas conference in Perth.
Leave granted.
PETITION
Barkly Regional Sports Infrastructure
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 361 petitioners praying the Barkly Regional Sports Infrastructure Program in the growth towns of Borroloola, Elliott and Ali Curung is funded. The petition bears the Clerk’s signature that it conforms to the requirements of standing orders.
Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- To the Chief Minister, the Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory.
We the undersigned respectfully showeth our support for the proposed Barkly Regional Sports Infrastructure Program in the growth towns of Borroloola, Elliott and Ali Curung.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Northern Territory government commit to funding the construction of Regional Sports Infrastructure in the form of Australian rules football ovals with supporting bush camping grounds that will facilitate the operation of regional football games, arts and culture festivals and regional school sports carnivals in Barkly growth towns. This commitment to regional development should be delivered in the forward budgets 2013 to 2016 in the growth towns of Borroloola, Elliott and Ali Curung and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Oil and Gas
Oil and Gas
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, given the visionary and very significant announcement by the Chief Minister last week on what is referred to as gas to Gove, it is timely that I provide an update on the exciting new developments in oil and gas projects and discoveries in the Northern Territory, and outline the enormous benefits growing this industry will bring for Territorians.
As I stated previously in this House, there is no doubt the mining industry is fundamentally important to the Territory. In 2010-11 this sector accounted for almost 17.5% of the Northern Territory’s economy, the single biggest contributor by far.
We all know mining has been a key driver of the Territory economy for decades. There is good reason for that; the Northern Territory has a tremendous natural wealth. We have an abundance of minerals and geological research that indicate the possibility of an abundance of oil and gas reserves just waiting to be discovered.
Of course, it is not enough that we have these resources, you need a government willing to take that message to the world, to the key international mining and petroleum industry representatives, to say the Territory is open for business and the potential for discovering minerals, oil and gas is huge.
It is no exaggeration to say the resource sector is the cornerstone of our economy, our long-term prosperity and, I go as far as to say, increasingly, it is responsible for our quality of life.
I share with you today a new reckoning of just how important the resource hub is. Currently, there is a host of significant investments in exploration, development and production either under way or under consideration in the Northern Territory and broader Timor Sea region.
Mining in the Territory directly employs nearly 4000 people including many Indigenous Territorians, with many more people indirectly employed through related industries. While these figures all attest to the strength and importance of the Northern Territory’s resource industry today, this government is committed to growing the resources sector in order to increase the future prosperity and development of the Territory, particularly in our regional areas. This means boosting minerals and energy exploration across the Northern Territory in the short term so new discoveries can be made which will become the new mining and energy projects of tomorrow.
Last month I gave the keynote address to the 5th Annual Australian American Chamber of Commerce Energy Conference in Houston, Texas. It was an honour to address this conference and present the opportunities for oil and gas development in the Territory. While in Houston my message was simple: the Northern Territory is open and ready for business. Our government is committed to making the Territory one of the best regions in the world in which to invest.
Today I will concentrate solely on oil and gas exploration and extraction, and the support this government is providing to ensure the growth of the energy industry. Shale oil and gas is tipped to become the major new source of Australian exports and it is estimated the Territory has over 200 trillion cubic feet of shale gas resources, but it could be more. In fact, only an hour or so ago I was given a briefing by Falcon Oil and Gas which is exploring in the Beetaloo Basin area.
They have reports which indicate there might be 162 trillion cubic feet of gas in the Beetaloo Basin which makes the words I used before - the 200 trillion - pale into insignificance because 162 is a fair part of that and much more of the Territory is open. To put that into context, 2 trillion cubic feet of gas is generally considered large enough to support a commercial production operation. If the estimates are right, our reserves could be described as being enough for 100, perhaps even more, commercial operations.
Despite the fragile international economy, I am pleased to tell you there is more good news for the NT. Countries in the Asia-Pacific region are especially hungry for the energy and minerals needed to fuel their growth and build a better quality of life for their citizens. This has created an unprecedented opportunity for the Territory to grow and diversify the markets for its natural resources. The Asia-Pacific region is rapidly becoming the centre of gravity for economic growth. Demand for energy in the Asian region is increasing rapidly and the NT is perfectly positioned to meet that demand.
Australian petroleum and gas production hit a new record in the September 2012 quarter, up 33% from the previous corresponding quarter. The EnergyQuest quarterly report published in December 2012 indicated quarterly petroleum production rose to a record 143.2 million barrels of oil equivalent, reflecting record natural gas production of 611 petajoules in the same period.
In October last year, Commonwealth Resources minister, Martin Ferguson, told the Australian Pipeline Industry Association conference that the country’s refining capacity was rising along with exports and he stated:
- We are now the third-largest LNG exporter in the Asia-Pacific region and the fourth largest in the world.
Our exports are forecast to grow by a further 19% in 2012-13.
Based on these proposed and committed projects, our capacity could quadruple by 2017, potentially making us the world’s largest LNG producer.
As reported in the Arab Times on 3 October 2012, and I quote in part:
- By 2020, Australia may eclipse Qatar as the world’s largest LNG exporting country.
The Australian Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics report dated October 2012 noted:
- Gas projects are the main contributor to the value of the Northern Territory’s potential investment pipeline ...
The Territory is ideally placed to provide a full range of both offshore oil and gas and onshore unconventional gas. We are recognised as Australia’s second key offshore supply hub for the oil and gas industry. We are the gateway to Asia. Approximately 95% of total cargo exported from Darwin’s East Arm Wharf in 2011-12 went to 15 Asian countries, predominantly China and Indonesia.
In order to accommodate the increase in offshore exploration and drilling activity to our north, a dedicated Marine Supply Base is under construction, due to be completed by September 2013. The Marine Supply Base will increase Darwin’s capacity to support offshore oil and gas developments in northern Australia, including the operations in the Arafura and Timor Seas and Browse Basin. This modern dedicated facility is designed to allow fast turnaround times and improve overall logistics efficiency.
During the INPEX Ichthys pipeline construction, the Marine Supply Base will serve as a load-out facility for armour rock to protect the gas export pipeline. It will:
(1) increase the number of rig tender vessels working out of Darwin
(2) allow local businesses that support the offshore oil and gas industry to grow
(3) attract new investment and business opportunities to provide services to support the offshore oil and gas industry that are not currently available in the Northern Territory.
The design of the base caters for three marine berths with fuel, water, chemical, and drilling mud connections; hard-sand and lay-down areas; warehousing; waste management facility; storage capacity for drilling muds, chemicals, water and fuel; office space; and associated facilities. In short, it will improve the efficiency of the Darwin East Arm Wharf by providing a purpose-built supply base and support facilities. It will have a capacity to service in excess of 1000 vessels per year with a 12-hour turnaround. Construction commenced in April 2012 and is expected to be completed by the end of 2013.
The Marine Supply Base is a key infrastructure investment by government to grow the capability and diversity of our supply and service sector for the oil and gas industry. Growing our supply and service industry is a high priority for this government. Supplementing the Marine Supply Base is an adjacent common user area, and Darwin Business Park of course.
The Ichthys LNG project and growing activity in our region have provided a window of opportunity for expansion of existing supply services businesses and the establishment of new businesses. This growth will boost and broaden our economy but, more importantly, will provide the industry with an increased range of competitively priced supply and service options.
This window of opportunity to grow the supply and service sector exists on a range of fronts. As you would be aware, Territory government agencies have visited overseas service hubs such as Aberdeen, Singapore, Stavanger and Houston to meet with local businesses and representative organisations to understand the extent of industries and the opportunities which might be attracted to set up in the Northern Territory or to partner with existing Territory businesses.
Those agencies have also visited Australia, the United Kingdom, Ireland, the United States, Thailand, the Philippines, and Vietnam identifying where skilled labour might be sourced to ease workforce pressures. This initiative is aimed to help big resource projects, as well as the supply and service industries, and to backfill traditional trades and industries that may lose part of their workforce during a resource construction boom.
Just as importantly, the training and upskilling of Territorians is just as crucial to avoid labour shortages and unsustainable salary increases. The Charles Darwin University, a dual sector institution which delivers both tertiary and trade school training, has been readying for the construction and operations phases of the coming resource sector boom. With funding secured from the Ichthys joint venture, this government, and other contributors, the university has established the North Australian Centre for Oil and Gas and is actively working with industry to secure key teaching staff and to determine training needs. This government is committed to the upskilling of our local workforce to maximise participation in construction and operations of resource projects specifically directed to oil and gas industries. We want to maximise the overall benefit from resource developments for our economy and our community.
We welcome LNG developments, particularly onshore processing, and believe that LNG will be the predominant natural gas consumer in our region for decades to come. We understand the difficulties of bringing to fruition these massive investments and of aligning project time lines for multiple projects. We also understand that other downstream industries can provide significantly greater employment per unit of energy. The Northern Territory oil and gas industry offers outstanding opportunities that are now recognised around the world.
That is why we have been so determined to explore every possible opportunity the gas to Gove challenge has presented us. What has become evident during our discussions to supply gas to Gove is the complete lack of an overarching gas policy for the NT, another deficiency of the former Labor government.
I applaud the Chief Minister of this still new Country Liberal government for the work he has done in delivering our end of the bargain to bring gas to Gove. This was not an easy decision to make. It could not be done four-and-a-half months ago. It could not be done by telephone, as the Leader of the Opposition glibly and ignorantly suggested. There were many issues that needed to be considered. I, for one, am pleased that due consideration was given to all those issues for the benefit of all Territorians. To you, Chief Minister, I say well done.
I also applaud the Chief Minister for putting the Territory and national energy security on the national agenda, something the former NT Labor government also failed to do. If it did not fit into the election cycle, Labor was not interested.
I encourage the new members of this parliament, the members for Nightcliff and Johnston and, of course, the new member for Wanguri, not to fall into the same old tired trap their colleagues fell into and at least think about the strategic future of the Territory. To those new members, please, even though your boss, the Leader of the Opposition, will not like it, I implore you - members for Johnston, Nightcliff, and Wanguri - to think beyond election cycles.
I digress a little. Linking our Territory gas pipelines to the eastern states and the national grid makes sense. It paves the way for competition in gas supply, which is a major factor in reducing energy costs. It also presents many opportunities for onshore gas development in the NT.
The Territory is recognised as one of the leading states or territories in natural gas development and, at the moment, is one of the most prospective jurisdictions in the world for oil and gas exploration. The growing international interest in our oil and gas is easy to explain. The NT has an abundance of the resources the world will need in the decades to come. From a national perspective, there may also be significant interest in the Territory as a gas supply for eastern states.
The Weekend Australian on 19 January this year, ran an article titled, ‘Gas boom won’t keep the home fires burning’. The journalist, Paul Cleary, said he believes we, as a country, are, and I quote in part:
- ... about to become an extreme case of the paradox of plenty - a gas rich country that cannot supply its domestic needs.
He went on to say:
- And the response so far from state and federal government is policy paralysis.
I point out the journalist made no reference to the territories in that quote, specifically, the NT. Perhaps he is a bit of a prophet because this new Country Liberal government of the Northern Territory is not suffering from policy paralysis at all. I will come back to that in a moment.
The crux of this article is - perhaps the best way to describe it is to use another quote where Mr Cleary asserts:
- Major industrial users report they are unable to secure new contracts with major producers because all available gas is contracted for export markets.
Can you imagine that? A world – well, Australia at least - where we, being so gas rich, cannot provide for our domestic market.
Back to policy. I mentioned that the current government is not suffering from policy paralysis. The former Labor government did not suffer from policy paralysis either. It was not paralysed, it was dead in the water, floating like a dead duck on a pond of debt. Labor’s lack of major policies and consideration was never on its radar which, frankly, makes the contributions of the members opposite last week on the Chief Minister’s statement on gas to Gove that much more irrelevant, shallow, and meaningless.
With a view to creating an energy policy which will serve the interests of Territorians for generations to come, I have commenced work on the development of an energy directorate within the Department of Mines and Energy. This high-level group will be responsible for informing the minister on the development of an overarching energy policy for the NT. This group will consist of professionals with the required experience and expertise in the resource industry but, crucially, this new initiative by our government will provide a strategic framework to grow the Territory’s oil and gas industry. It is this type of vision and commitment to the long-term development that the people of the Northern Territory can expect from this government.
As I have already stated, the NT oil and gas sector is a significant part of the NT’s economy. As a real government, we are committed to ensuring these resources are developed responsibly and to the maximum benefit of all Territorians. We must also broaden our market reach to match our resource potential. It is a strategic priority for our government, which is why as strong as the Territory’s resource advantage is today, we continue to explore ways to ensure the NT remains a destination of choice for resource investors around the world.
The history of Darwin’s story as a burgeoning centre for oil and gas commenced in earnest 25 years ago when the Montara field was first discovered in March 1988 by BHP Billiton, 650 km west of Darwin. The Thailand-based company PTTEP Australasia currently controls 100% of this project that includes four oil fields, Montara, Skua, Swift and Swallow.
Also in the Timor Sea, 500 km offshore of Darwin and 250 km south of Timor-Leste, the Bayu oil field was discovered in early 1995 followed by the Undan fields a few months later. The operator is ConocoPhillips. Commercial production began in April 2004 and the second phase of Bayu-Undan’s development, the gas phase, began production two years later.
The extracted lean gas is transported to Darwin via a 500 km pipeline where it is liquefied at a single-train processing plant at Wickham Point, producing 3.6 million tonnes of LNG for export annually. Wickham Point was authorised for 10 million tonnes of LNG per year and ConocoPhillips is keen to add a second processing train. The Australian Business Unit President, Mr Todd Creeger, advised last year’s September South East Asia Australia Offshore Conference in Darwin:
- Potentially the Browse Basin drilling … that is going on now could underpin a second train, and we will know within a few months whether that is going to be successful.
The Browse Basin fields that Todd makes reference to include Poseidon and Phase 2 of an exploration program led by ConocoPhillips with joint venture partner Karoon Gas. This program commenced in the first quarter of 2012 and, by October last year, the exploration well was reporting a strong flow rate at 30 million cubic feet a day.
In September 2009, Eni started production from its 100% owned and operated Blacktip field in the southern Bonaparte Gulf. Gas from Blacktip, once processed through an onshore gas plant, supplies the Power and Water Corporation. In times to come, thanks to the efforts of the Chief Minister, Terry Mills, that gas is expected to reach the Gove refinery so the future prosperity of the whole of East Arnhem can be assured for some time to come. I should add that the Territory government supports Eni’s aspirations for the expansion of the Blacktip facilities into a regional gas collection hub.
The Sunrise and Troubadour gas and condensate fields, collectively known as the Greater Sunrise fields, are located 150 km southeast of Timor-Leste, and 450 km northwest of Darwin. Discovered in 1974, current joint venture partners are operators Woodside with ConocoPhillips, Shell and Osaka Gas. Discussions continue with the Timor-Leste government towards development.
The Kitan oil field also situated in the joint petroleum development area between Australia and Timor-Leste is notable for the fast-track time line scales of only three years and nine months from discovery to start up. This joint venture, led by Italian oil giant, Eni with INPEX and Talisman Resources, saw the first oil achieved in October 2011 using Bluewater’s upgraded Glas Dowr floating production storage and offloading system. Eni has also been active for MEO Australia further east at Evans Shoal.
A little over a year ago, INPEX Corporation and Total SA confirmed their final investment decision on the Ichthys LNG project, the largest discovery of hydrocarbon liquids in Australia during the last 40 years, estimated at more than 527 million barrels of oil. This signalled the start of construction of one of the world’s largest LNG facilities at Blaydin Point based on an estimated 40 years of gas and condensate which will be transported to the onshore processing facilities by an 889 km pipeline from the Western Australia coast. Blaydin Point has the capacity to support two initial LNG trains and accommodate up to six LNG trains in total for further expansion. The Ichthys project is expected to produce 8.4 million tonnes of LNG and 1.6 million tonnes of LPG per annum, along with approximately 100 000 barrels of condensate per day at peak.
INPEX is also involved in the Abadi gas field located at the Masela block, Arafura Sea, holding a 60% participating interest, with Shell holding a 30% interest. A floating LNG plant is envisaged for Stage 1 development and, although in Indonesian waters, the potential hub for service and supply is Darwin. The subsea front end engineering and design contract has been awarded with a separate contract for the floating LNG facilities to follow in due course.
Royal Dutch Shell, which has the Prelude and Concerto gas fields, has indicated it will use Darwin as a maintenance base for a floating processing plant for LNG from the Prelude field which is also off the WA coast. Floating LNG concepts have been identified as technically feasible and economically viable options for north Australian waters with the additional benefit of a lighter environmental footprint. Shell’s generic design-one-build-many approach is seen as the ideal means of unlocking Australia’s offshore gas resources.
Construction of Shell’s floating LNG substructure, a world first, has commenced with joint venture partners INPEX and KOGAS at Samsung Heavy Industries’ Geoje shipyard in South Korea. Prelude’s production is due to start in 2017 with 3.6 million metric tonnes of LNG and 1.3 million tonnes of gas condensate a year. The Crux gas condensate field is also poised to be developed as a part of the Prelude project. As previously mentioned, the Marine Supply Base will be integral to the successful maintenance and supply of Shell’s facilities.
In November last year, Santos announced a significant gas discovery at the Crown-1 exploration well 60 km west of the Ichthys field and 20 km east of the Poseidon field. In addition, Santos and GDF Suez plan a floating LNG development for their proposed Bonaparte Gulf ventures, with a final investment decision scheduled for the end of 2014.
Santos and ConocoPhillips have taken steps towards commercialising the Caldita and Barossa fields in the Timor Sea north of the Tiwi Islands, entering into a farm-out agreement with an affiliate of South Korean conglomerate, SK Group. A three-well appraisal program will commence this year.
These are just a few of the offshore projects. The Commonwealth Minister for Resources and Energy recently granted seven new exploration permits for offshore NT and WA that will see an estimated $277m in new investment in offshore areas over the next three years. These include a permit granted to Tangiers Petroleum Limited in the Money Shoal Basin 100 km north of Darwin in the Arafura Sea.
Importantly, the prospect of creating a real commercial domestic market through gas to Gove and potential other smaller domestic interests will spark a renewed interest in oil and gas in the Territory, of that I have no doubt.
Not only is there a massive offshore potential, but the same applies onshore as the search for energy extends from offshore to the bush. By the end of 2011, accelerated exploration programs have led the percentage of onshore and near-shore acreage either granted or under application across the Territory to a level of almost 90%. International exploration companies are investing hundreds of millions of dollars in recognition of the NT’s high prospectivity for shale gas assets, an industry that has dramatically altered the American energy landscape.
Indeed, the unprecedented level of interest we are witnessing in the Territory is, no doubt, the result of the success of the unconventional shale oil and gas industry in America and the belief that proven modern technologies in use in the United States can be replicated in Australia. The potential of multiple shale gas reservoirs has been identified and the declaration of contingent reserves plus major investments planned by international petroleum companies such as Hess, Statoil, Total, Santos and ConocoPhillips have seriously heightened investment interest.
At the 2012 South East Asia Australia Offshore Conference, Martyn Eames, Vice President of the Asia Pacific Division of Santos advised that shale oil and gas could produce a major new source of Australian exports. He noted that the Territory is estimated ‘to have more than 200 trillion cubic feet of shale gas reserves’.
Armour Energy has one of the largest shale gas acreage positions in Australia comprising exclusive rights over approximately 33 million acres in the McArthur, Georgina and South Nicholson Basins, extending from the Northern Territory into Queensland. A resource assessment of its Glyde #1 lateral well in the McArthur Basin confirmed a significant gas discovery, and drilling will take place over the next two years.
In November 2012, Santos announced the execution of a farming agreement with Tamboran Resources covering approximately 25 000 km2.
Permits covering an area of seven million acres in the Beetaloo Basin, 600 km south of Darwin, are currently held by Falcon Oil & Gas Australia Ltd. Falcon’s Chief Executive Officer, Mr Phillip O’Quigley summed it up:
- The amount of interest in the Northern Territory’s unconventional opportunities has blown us away. We’re getting phone calls from the investment community and industry from all over the world because they hear what’s going on. It’s captured people’s imagination ...
PetroFrontier Corporation was one of the first companies to undertake exploration, acquisition and development of both conventional and unconventional petroleum assets in the Southern Georgina Basin. Areas further south in the Territory are also in play where companies such as Central Petroleum have focused in Central Australia’s oil and gas potential.
The history of the Northern Territory with regard to oil and gas is strong, although you could say it is still in its infancy. Traditionally, all the Territory’s onshore gas production came from the Amadeus Basin, from fields at Mereenie operated by Santos and Palm Valley operated by Magellan.
My Department of Mines and Energy’s NT Geological Survey estimates up to 6 billion barrels of oil remain to be discovered in the Amadeus Basin alone, and the Surprise 1 oil discovery proved that potential early last year.
This gives you an indication of the current scale of oil and gas development in the Territory. Our focus is firmly on achieving the full potential in partnership with leading international companies.
I will now briefly touch on the NT government’s view on the stimulation of horizontal wells or, to use the vernacular, fracking. In 2012, we saw the first two wells horizontally stimulated in the Territory as a part of the PetroFrontier program and, in 2013, we expect there will be more of this exploration technique. I understand this is an essential process if we want to realise the potential benefits that lie beneath the surface of the NT.
However, I am also very mindful of community concerns about real and perceived bad practice. In this regard, the Territory is actively pursuing best practice regulation for the unconventional energy exploration activities as a means of continual improvement to our regulatory procedures.
This government has commissioned a review of the NT’s petroleum regulatory regime in order to provide the industry and our community with surety that we have an appropriate and contemporary legislative regime to assist the development of this untapped resource.
I mentioned before that I gave the keynote address to the Australian American Chamber of Commerce 5th Annual Energy Conference in Houston, Texas. While I was in the United States, I took the opportunity to add value to that trip by spending a day-and-a-half inspecting various operations and sites where unconventional gas was being extracted. These were horizontally fracked wells.
As the responsible minister, I will continue to take the time to explore and understand the new technologies used to extract tight oil and gas. I need to understand the processes and be comfortable with them from an operational and environmental point of view. The time I spent on those gas fields in Texas gave me an insight into how these practices can be successfully employed with minimal impact and risk to the environment. For example, at a site I visited where a horizontal fracked well was being cleaned out prior to production, every vehicle on the gas pad which held any liquids was bunded to capture any spills. It was impressive stuff.
Technologies such as those applied in the drilling of wells and the release of tight gas in the horizontal plain have transformed the gas potential of parts of the United States. That potential lies also within the geological formations of the Territory. This government is not afraid to adopt the use of those technologies whilst bearing in mind the enormous responsibility we have to protect the environment. That is why my Department of Mines and Energy is investigating world’s best practice and regulation so we can lead this country in adopting the very best regime to reduce, by the greatest degree, risk to the environment.
You would be aware that December 2012 marked the 40th anniversary of the formal establishment of Australia-China relations. We have a very active Northern Australia Ministerial Forum working to strengthen our bilateral relationship with China. On 24 November 2012, the Significant Investor Visa pathway commenced to attract prominent business people and investors. This has attracted major interest in Asia.
The Asian century white paper recently launched by Prime Minister Gillard acknowledges that a cornerstone of the growing engagement with Asia is the booming energy resources sector across northern Australia, particularly LNG. It states:
- … Darwin has great opportunities to become a world-leading centre for engineering, financial, medical and education services. It is on the cusp of evolving in the same way as Singapore, which has used its location to become a modern thriving city with high-quality housing, services and quality of life.
The primary driving force of our expanding economy is our mining and, increasingly, our energy industry. The majority of our land is still underexplored, but we are starting to see on-the-ground exploration activity ramping up on granted tenures. The early stages of shale oil and gas exploration are largely about understanding the geology, and unlocking the secrets to achieving commercial flow rates. If this is successful - and I am confident it will be - then the growth of unconventional activity will be exponential.
It is fair to say there has been a boom in onshore petroleum exploration in the NT recently, which is an important new element of the Territory’s resources industry that can potentially provide alternative, and possibly cheaper, fuel sources for the domestic market and for export. Much of this activity is related to unconventional oil and gas potential. In the past year there have been a number of horizontal wells drilled in shales in the NT.
Another example is Armour Energy’s recent Glyde #1 lateral hole that has discovered significant gas with flows equivalent to around 4 million standard cubic feet of gas per day. Another recent onshore activity in the Territory is the conventional oil play by Central Petroleum at the Surprise well west of Alice Springs in Central Australia.
The NT government is actively promoting the Territory’s oil and gas potential both on and offshore, and we are building productive relationships with the international petroleum industry and key exploration and investment companies. Darwin, now firmly established as a major LNG hub, is already a supply and service centre for much of Australia’s oil and gas exploration and production in our northern waters.
The outlook for the oil and gas sector in the Northern Territory is bright. This government will be working hard to ensure we do what we can to allow this industry to grow for the benefit of all Territorians now and for generations to come. This government has the commitment and resolve to follow this through.
Madam Speaker, I move that the statement be noted.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement because in so many ways he is complementing the work of the previous Labor government, commending us for our leadership and our foresight in building the oil and gas sector in the Northern Territory. When Labor was in power in 2010-11, the sector grew to account for 17.5% of the NT economy, providing the almost 4000 jobs you referred to. Thank you for acknowledging and congratulating that work of Labor.
It was Labor that established the North Australian Centre for Oil and Gas at the Charles Darwin University. Everyone knows that it was Labor that secured the Ichthys project, that all-important INPEX/Total project and all of the associated economic activity we are seeing in the Top End today.
The subsequent growth and emergence of new opportunities in oil and gas are all so very welcome but are, very clearly, the direct result of workforce development strategies, the investment environment, and the regulatory framework put in place by the Henderson Labor government. I am particularly heartened by the offshore gas development, especially in the Bonaparte Basin. The recent drilling activities by MEO Australia and Eni in the Heron South-1 field and the advances toward the production by Santos and ConocoPhillips at the Barossa Caldita sites are of particular interest.
Then there is the exploration being undertaken by Shell, Eni, and other partners in the Evans Shoal field. As the minister pointed out, there is also exploration quite close to Darwin in the Money Shoal Basin by Tangiers Petroleum.
I thank the minister for acknowledging the attraction of this investment and exploration by the Henderson Labor government.
The minister seeks to claim this as the work of his government in the past five months. That is not a credible assertion. However, I genuinely welcome the minister’s recent conversion to supporting our oil and gas industry. I note the term ‘three-hub economy’ is not once mentioned in his statement. I note the minister’s remark:
- Countries in the Asia-Pacific region are especially hungry for the energy and minerals needed to fuel their growth and build a better quality of life for their citizens.
I point out one massive glaring problem with the minister’s statement. He talked in very glowing terms about the Marine Supply Base and all the wonderful long-term benefits the Marine Supply Base will provide:
- The Marine Supply Base is a key infrastructure investment by government to grow the capability and diversity of our supply and service sector for the oil and gas industry.
He also stated the Marine Supply Base will be integral to Shell’s investment in the construction of the world’s first floating LNG substructure leading to significant LNG and gas condensate production from 2017. He failed to mention it is his government which paid their mates $1m to put the Marine Supply Base under attack in the first progress report issued by the Renewal Management Board. Yes, the Renewal Management Board, the experts from whom they received the advice that guided them in their financial decisions since becoming government, put the Marine Supply Base under attack in their first progress report. They threatened it. The Renewal Management Board’s progress report was scathing of the project, and said:
- This project requires an in-depth review to consider its future ...
The minister glowed about the previous government’s projects such as the INPEX Total Ichthys projects, the Marine Supply Base, the Charles Darwin University Oil and Gas Institute, the common user area, then ever so lamely claimed Labor had a lack of policies. The CLP talked about our lack of a gas reservation policy. The Chief Minister has gone on the national stage calling for a domestic gas reservation policy yet, curiously, if the Territory had imposed a domestic gas reservation policy there would be no ConocoPhillips LNG and no INPEX Total Ichthys. There would be no jobs in that sector, and there would be no gas to supply to Gove.
Speaking of gas to Gove, the Chief Minister almost destroyed, through his dithering, the lives and livelihoods of so many Territorians in his ham-fisted negotiations with Rio Tinto. His dithering did nothing more than extend the time taken to resolve the matter. I am so glad it was eventually resolved. However, as I said, he did not need to go to Milan, Paris and London to resolve what was in his in tray in Darwin. He took a trip to Perth and met with the companies. He would have heard directly from the headquarters in Perth what he knew all along: the 10-year supply of gas to Gove was crucial. It is something he eventually got to after flying to Perth, Canberra, Singapore, Milan, Paris, and London when we all knew all along.
Of course, the minister did not really take an interest in the supply of gas to Gove, in keeping a refinery open for some 1600 jobs - 800 direct - or in keeping the Pacific Aluminium refinery open which provides about $500m to the Territory economy. The minister did not show up. He went to Texas, but did not get on a plane and go to Gove. There are two commercial flights per day to Gove. It would not have been too difficult for the minister with this responsibility to get on a plane and fly to Gove.
This was probably best highlighted by his effusive praise of his colleague, the Leader of Government Business, when he left a Cabinet meeting and rushed to a serious accident involving a school bus, indicating he would do exactly the same thing if there was a serious incident in his area of portfolio responsibility. He made that effusive praise at exactly the same time Nhulunbuy was in crisis over the potential closure of a refinery. It beggars belief that the minister did not get on a plane and fly to Gove.
Also, where is the government’s vision for pipelines and delivering gas to consumers? We heard the Chief Minister make a big play about that; he wanted to see a national pipeline network and link up the ability to deliver gas to consumers around our great nation, and said it is a significant area for future infrastructure needs. Where are they on that? What have they achieved on that? Are they proposing taxpayers fund commercial pipelines? Are they proposing Australian governments underwrite these national linked pipelines? These are some really bizarre comments from a conservative party.
National infrastructure for commercial purposes is interesting. You would have thought it contradicts the party’s stance on the mining rental resource tax which had a strong element of funding for infrastructure, yet the conservative parties railed against that. How is the Chief Minister proposing a national series hook-up of pipelines? Is it a levy? Is it a tax? He said it has to happen and it is critical, yet gave no detail on who will fund it or how it will be funded.
What is important - and I know it will be lost in this debate to an extent - is the message this nonsense is sending about the Northern Territory and the ability to do business in the Northern Territory with certainty. This is the crux of it. When asked why INPEX made that critical decision to deliver the nation’s second largest project, the $34bn investment to Darwin instead of Western Australia, Kuroda San told the global media gathered in Darwin it was certainty. The Labor government of the Territory provided an environment of legislative regulatory certainty.
We were not cowboys running around saying whatever wild thought entered our head that provided an environment of uncertainty. That environment is prevailing today under the CLP government. Business has heard the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory say there needs to be a domestic gas reservation policy. Extraordinary!
The major global oil and gas companies are fundamentally and completely opposed to a domestic gas reservation policy. APPEA, the industry organisation, is opposed to a domestic gas reservation policy. Regardless of what individuals think about that, if you send those messages to the industry and global players, as a government and as Chief Minister, you are sending a message of deep uncertainty about their tens of millions of dollars’ worth of investment, mounting up into the billions of dollars’ worth of investment: $277m in investment in exploration, gearing into billions of dollars of investment if these projects fire. However, they will not risk it when you have a cowboy, the member for Blain, uttering absolute nonsense. It is a fact there was no CLP policy when they were negotiating with ConocoPhillips for the LNG for a domestic gas reservation. Unless you are not putting your policies up on the website, you still do not have that policy. You still do not have the policy of a domestic gas reservation. Your Chief Minister is saying you do. That is incredibly dangerous and stupid, and it sends a signal to business that you are putting up the ‘closed for business’ sign.
Labor built a strong foundation, and the speech by the minister today described it. He described the investment in exploration, how critically important the Marine Supply Base is, and the opportunities arising from, for example, the Ichthys project. We heard the Chief Minister talk about the transport opportunities in Question Time today and the jobs and investment that brings. The statement described the Labor foundations and bedrocks, the Charles Darwin University Oil and Gas Institute.
Do not tear down the hard-won work of a Labor Henderson government simply because you are a Chief Minister grappling for excuses for your dithering! Do not jeopardise the Territory’s hard-fought-for, hard-won fundamental growth through oil and gas.
I spend much of my time as Leader of the Opposition reassuring the small, medium and large businesses which are incredibly worried by what they hear in the statements of the Chief Minister. They are very worried. I say, ‘It is early days, he is new, he does not really mean it, he is saying it as a distraction, get on with your business. We are a good environment in which to invest.’ How strange is it when the Labor Leader of the Opposition is spending her time reassuring business that their investment will be safe in the Territory, because the conservative Chief Minister is making them all incredibly nervous with what he says? They are worried.
Yes, I commend the statement, but I will point out the dangers of the public comments of the Chief Minister and how it is threatening our lucrative business. You heard the debate about what they will do for us; it will be a two-tiered economy. What they will do is give our children jobs and opportunities.
Real time, real life, right now, KBR, which is sourcing the workers for the INPEX project, is going around the remote communities looking for employees to train and provide jobs to. They were recently on the Tiwi Islands. I met some young guys over there who are undertaking certificates in construction. This is a real opportunity, not just for someone sitting in the northern suburbs of Darwin, but for people from all over the Territory.
I heard the member for Barkly talk about fly-in fly-out. Why cannot anyone from anywhere in the Territory become a fly-in fly-out worker from that Darwin camp if they so choose? It is good money. World-class training and world-class jobs are available in the Territory in construction to work on skills that can be achieved. I have seen Macmahon train young Indigenous Territorians and put them on the site at Blaydin Point. Macmahon is sourcing the same skill sets and same local workers for the contract they picked up at the Marine Supply Base. This is real, this is today, and this is genuine. This is the work Labor has brought to the Territory. Yet, the Chief Minister threatens further growth and developments through his foolish statements.
Yes, ConocoPhillips has a second train that can be developed and INPEX has further trains that can go to production, be constructed and developed. This is just the beginning.
Madam Speaker, the Asian century is here. We have the energy requirements our Asian neighbours need. We have opened up the Territory for business. We have put the legislative, regulatory and environmental frameworks in place. We have ensured the approvals sit there for ConocoPhillips and INPEX for further trains at their facilities. Do not stuff it up! So far, Chief Minister, you are doing your damnedest.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, this very important statement from the Minister for Mines and Energy is important because, as the minister said, the sector accounts for about 17.5% of the Northern Territory economy, the biggest contributor by far.
I noticed in reading this document and listening to the minister there are some important areas which were not covered. They are the areas I will raise tonight.
No doubt, we have a significant expansion in gas and oil exploration offshore in the Top End of Australia, and in Central Australia. Various techniques to bring that oil and gas into production, such as fracking - that is an area many people have an interest in, especially when you see some of the videos from the United States and hear concerns people have in other parts of Australia.
The minister has explained to me before that the system used in the Northern Territory is different. But the government will need to do more work to convince people that is the case. There was an Indigenous leader on ABC radio this morning saying he would not support fracking. If the government wishes to promote this as a means of expanding the oil and gas industry - especially the gas industry in the Northern Territory - then it needs to sell and explain to people exactly what this will mean, and show people that the process which will be used will not affect the environment. If the government will promote this as a means of expanding gas production in the Northern Territory, it needs to sell its case to the public. It has not done enough work in that area, and that would be beneficial for those who both oppose and support it.
With the expansion of oil and gas exploration in the north, where will that gas come onshore? There is talk about extra trains by ConocoPhillips and INPEX. If you consider that Darwin Harbour is pretty well at its limit for any more LNG development, it would have been good to see what the vision is for further expansion onshore of facilities that support LNG and other gas production, and also for industries that might want to use that gas for their particular purposes.
For a long time we have heard about developing Glyde Point. It was a possible area to be developed in the CLP government’s time. When the Labor Party was in government, it was removed from those maps which showed the area as a future industrial area. Now, I believe it is proposed, once again, by the CLP government, that Glyde Point be an area for future heavy industry, especially in relation to gas. There is no mention of that in this statement. I would have thought it would have been appropriate when issuing a statement on oil and gas to deal with what areas the Northern Territory government sees as suitable for future expansion onshore for the development of oil and gas. That is something lacking in this document.
I also believe we cannot ignore - whether we like it or not - the relationship between Australia and Timor-Leste in sharing this resource, because we are at times working in areas where we have joint exploration fields which have a bearing on our relationship with Timor-Leste. It would be good to hear from this government what its views are on the sharing of that resource. I have said before, the technical issues in relation to whether you can take LNG across the trench have been used as the reasons why a pipeline cannot be taken to Timor-Leste.
The reality is we talk about huge amounts of gas and oil being developed, and on our doorstep is the poorest country in the world. We have a responsibility to ensure the benefits of gas and oil in this region are shared by our neighbour which, obviously, has a much greater need for this type of development than we do. That is not to say it is not important for our Territory and our country. However, I do not believe you can do that in isolation by shutting your eyes to the fact that Timor-Leste is an extremely poor country which has very high unemployment. From a strategic point of view, we want a peaceful nation on our doorstep, one that is not liable to have disruptions because of high unemployment and uncertainty for many young people as to what their future is. We know the history of Timor-Leste and that there have been problems before. We should be doing our best to ensure when we develop our oil and gas we do not leave Timor-Leste out of the debate. I would like to hear from the government how it sees the relationship between our two countries in the development of oil and gas in the region.
There was talk about energy security and the pipeline. The Chief Minister’s idea of having some type of gas pipeline grid in Australia is one of merit if we consider the amount of gas which has been produced. If we can use a reliable source of gas across Australia that will benefit this part of the world and develop more industries.
One thing which might be of interest is I remember when the development of those units near Darwin High School - the next stage is being built now - I am trying to remember the name ...
Mr Vatskalis: Hastings.
Mr WOOD: Hastings on Mindil. I took a tour of the building with the owners and there was talk about bringing gas there. The Territory does not have a domestic supply of gas for households and industry. Some people are supplied with gas, whether it is bottled or there are some limited pipelines. With the price of power increasing there is an opportunity to look at whether we could supply gas to individual households. I have an electric stove but am out in the sticks so that may not be possible, but there must be an opportunity to look at whether it is feasible to put a domestic supply into the suburbs of Darwin. It is done in most other states. My mother lives in Melbourne and she has had a gas stove for most of her life. The idea of a reticulated gas supply within a city is not new.
With all this gas around, it would be interesting to know whether there is a possibility to expand gas supply in Darwin. I do not have the wherewithal to produce a cost-benefit analysis to see if it could reduce the cost of living because people could cook with something cheaper than electricity. Perhaps the government could give it some consideration and see whether there are opportunities for that to occur, as well as in the other centres such as Alice Springs. The gas pipeline goes past Katherine and Tennant Creek. Look into the opportunities for domestic use of gas wherever it goes.
There was mention of fly-in fly-out. There has been much discussion on social media and through the general media about the benefits of fly-in fly-out. It is worth debate and is not in this statement. I agree with the Opposition Leader. I have previously raised that I have concerns we will get a very rich section of the Northern Territory from this great boom in our economy through mining and oil and gas, that there will be a group of people who do not benefit from it and we will have the haves and the have-nots. As a new government - I raised this with the previous government - we have to somehow give those people who live in remote communities, who do not have proper jobs, the opportunity to be part of the economic boom which will come from the expansion of oil and gas.
As the Leader of the Opposition said, and I have said before, if we can fly people from interstate to work in the Northern Territory, we can fly people from remote communities. I have raised this issue in relation to the abattoir at Livingstone. For instance, why could there not be a hostel run by Aboriginal Hostels where people could come in for two weeks and go back to their community for a week so they do not lose contact with their community but are able to work on these sites? Obviously, they would need training. You will not be able to work on some of these sites without having the necessary skills. You could use the Larrakia Training Centre for bringing people in and upskilling them so they can become part of this new development and enjoy real wages. That is a goal we need to look at.
One of the big dangers we have in our society today is we will end up having haves and have-nots. If you want to ensure social disharmony in your society that is when it occurs. That is the same argument I use for Timor-Leste. People need good jobs. As much as we should be helping Timor-Leste, we need to be helping our own people in remote communities to improve their standard of living.
I am a great believer in the concept that welfare should not be available easily in remote communities and we should have people working. However, here is an opportunity for people to get real jobs in an expanding economy. It will not happen if welfare is still available so easily for people.
The minister talked about training, which is interesting. I must be getting old, my grandson - goodness me - had his 17th birthday. That makes me feel old. He is in his last year at St John’s. He has been given an apprenticeship through JKC. He will be doing some of that work through Charles Darwin University - I presume at the Oil and Gas centre at Charles Darwin University. He is as pleased as punch. I told him he might have to spend much more time sitting at a desk studying maths and English rather than operating a tablet or a smartphone, or whatever they do when they are looking down all the time. There you are, there is a local lad. We have a big company which has come to Darwin and here is an opportunity for him to really set his future in a great direction because he now has the opportunity to work for that company and gain skills that he might have been struggling to get a few years ago. I am hoping it will work out. He will have to make a big effort because it is not easy. The arrival of oil and gas into Darwin has created those opportunities.
The other area I should raise, I saw today. We get the little headlines sent around in relation to what has been in the newspaper. I did not know this, but the headline was ‘Territory call to reform land rights mining veto’. I do not know much about this, but I thought it was at least worth raising. This was in The Australian today:
- The Northern Territory government is demanding reforms to a law giving Aborigines rights to their traditional lands and allowing them to veto mining, claiming that it is holding up vital exploration in the resource-rich region.
The Territory government says there is a backlog of 815 applications by mining companies wanting to explore on Aboriginal freehold land governed by the 1976 federal Aboriginal Land Rights Act - almost half the Territory - compared to 212 for non-Aboriginal areas.
On top of this, a significant backlog is emerging for onshore oil and gas exploration.
Typically, it is taking 43 months between the time that the NT allows a miner to start negotiations with a land council and federal approval for an exploration grant under the act.
The act is ‘considered to be the foremost non-financial barrier to exploration in the Northern Territory’, the government says.
It went on to talk about Central Land Council’s David Ross and Robert Graham disagreeing with the figures. It said the Department of Mines and Energy made these comments in a submission to a Productivity Commission inquiry. It also raised some issues that the Central Land Council has raised with concerns about this concept of a reform on the land rights mining veto. It quotes former NLC director, Norman Fry, who said the government’s recommendations did not go far enough.
- He said meaningful reform of land councils would empower traditional owners to ‘drive and negotiate with mining companies at the table and to choose their own advisors’.
- Since leaving the NLC, Mr Fry has worked as a consultant with a breakaway proposal to form a separate land council in a bid to empower traditional owners that was last week rejected by the federal government.
That was a pretty important statement. I do not know enough about this move by the government to pass an opinion, but I would have thought, as this was put forward by the NT Department of Mines and Energy in a submission to a Productivity Commission inquiry, there would have been some mention of this in this statement.
Yes, there is no doubt that mining on Aboriginal land can bring benefits, but it has to be done pretty carefully. I will give you an example. My wife’s country is at the mouth of the Daly River. The Peron Islands are just across the way and they love the Peron Islands. Once upon a time the islands used to be a conservation reserve, but they are part of the Wagait Aboriginal Land Trust. She did not realise someone had put an exploration request to drill on the coast of the Peron Islands.
My wife has not done a university degree in science, especially gas exploration, but the first thing she said was, ‘I am very concerned they will drill holes in the mud around the islands there because there is a lot of coral and lots of fish, etcetera’. I understand where she is coming from. She sees this as a possible threat to the land and sea she knows. She has no more information. In fact, she did not know this application had gone in. The land council was a little slack in telling them, after the event, this application had gone in.
There is already an application for oil and gas exploration on the whole of Wagait reserve. It was in the paper last Friday, or the Friday before. I was alerted to that. That is not to say it cannot be done, but one of the reasons for the veto is to recognise the fact that Aboriginal people who have lived on the land for a long time are worried about what side effects mining can have on their land. It certainly can bring benefits to these communities, but I am also aware it can be a downside in many cases.
Money is not everything in this world. Sometimes we can see the benefits of companies bringing wealth to these communities. They can get off welfare, all the joys of being rich can be put to these people, but in the end it is not everything. I am a little concerned about this statement ...
Mr VATSKALIS: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I move an extension of time for the member for Nelson to finish his remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Casuarina.
It worries me. It needs some good, rounded debate because I can see the two sides. For instance, they were looking at drilling off Groote Eylandt for manganese. My understanding is Groote Eylandt traditional owners do not want that. Technically, under this change, I imagine no matter what they thought, it would still happen.
The minister could have developed more on this issue in his statement. It is a very important issue. I imagine, even amongst Aboriginal people, there is for and against it. I only saw the article this morning. Perhaps when the minister sums up on this issue he can explain where this has come from and what the government’s plans are on reform to the land rights mining veto. That is not in the paper. It is a very important issue because there are good and bad sides to the debate. We need to go through that debate very carefully. We should ensure we involve those people who will be affected so we get an understanding of what they think.
I thank the minister for the statement. There is no doubt oil and gas can bring enormous benefits to the Territory. We always have to balance that.
There can be some downsides to fly-in fly-out, as we know. You only have to look at recent documentaries on the effect fly-in fly-out sometimes has on families. The option of having fly-in fly-out for some of our more remote communities can give them the opportunity to enjoy some of the benefits the minister has outlined. The idea of having a gas pipeline criss-crossing the continent is good. There is also the ability to have domestic gas.
Where will all the infrastructure on land be sited? That is a big question. It is not cheap to develop Glyde Point. It has always been a stumbling block for any government because of the amount of infrastructure required to do it. Where will onshore facilities go?
We also should not leave out the question, ‘What will our relationship be with Timor-Leste in the sharing of some of this resource?’ As I said, it is the poorest country in the world. We cannot always look inward. Sometimes we have to look outwards to our neighbours. Sharing those resources in a way which will help that country economically and socially is something we cannot ignore.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement and look forward to his reply.
Mr MILLS (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the statement and make some comments related to the recent - in fact, it was today - comments which have been made by the Australian Chamber of Commerce’s Peter Anderson regarding the two-speed economy. The reason I make comment on this is because of the oil and gas industry, the economic drivers this provides for the Northern Territory economy, and how we, as a government, should respond. I also intend to address some of the matters raised by the previous speaker, the member for Nelson, regarding a domestic gas supply and how we manage to deal with the resource we have, the lack of supply, and how we can increase domestic demand through increased supply. I will then link this into the recent gas to Gove exercise, what has been the outcome, and where we are with that.
With regard to the impact of the mining sector and, in particular, oil and gas in the Northern Territory, it is noted these are significant drivers to the Territory economy. As we noted in the lead-up to the last election, there was a preoccupation with a single big project and all the good headlines that can come from having a big project. However, big projects have a life of their own. You can stand and point at them, wearing a hard hat perhaps, and have your photograph taken, and talk about all the positive things that will flow from this, but it requires a planning response as well.
There are two important matters. One is we need to remain vigilant with the release of land so there is plenty of space for people to live. With increased activity, you need to increase the space for people, at a whole range of incomes, to live. That was observed, noted and responded to in opposition. We now have the opportunity to implement programs through the Planning Commission. Through a more decisive response to the release of land there are places for people to live because that allows us to capitalise on the opportunity. Affordable housing is directly linked to the opportunities that come from the oil and gas industry.
Second, it relates to energy security and the cost of living. One of the key concerns I and my government had in dealing with the issue of securing a supply of gas for Gove was to ensure we had a supply of gas to enable the decision to release existing known supply, and risk exposure in future.
We are in this situation because there was domestic or onshore demand for gas through Rio Tinto’s ultimatum. That provides the opportunity, given there is demand, for supply to be incentivised. In that context, it was very important to keep the discussion going, and keep alive the opportunity now presented with the domestic demand for gas through the securing of supplies to keep the refinery going and, at the same time, ensure we keep up domestic exploration and production.
That is where the primary focus was in the first instance; to ensure that in all the activity with Santos, GDF Suez, the onshore opportunity with Eni, and a number of others that were mentioned in the minister’s statement, were given the incentive to maintain their efforts. That was the first important part of it. Of itself, that was insufficient to provide the security which is required, not just for the Northern Territory, but for the opportunity that is presented by energy issues, particularly to the east, where there are known reserves not brought to the surface, or some conjecture over whether coal seam gas could be utilised for generating domestic use on the eastern seaboard.
To take it to the next step and have a pipeline constructed between Tennant Creek and Mount Isa increases the domestic demand. If we have seen domestic demand result in increased exploration and potential production, how much more would be the case if we took it to the next step and built a 700 km pipeline between Tennant Creek and Mount Isa, which would open up a much bigger domestic demand potential?
Once you have demand, then supply comes in to match that demand. That is the purpose of the two aspects of the strategy employed by the Country Liberals government, guided by the need to manage risk and use this opportunity to advantage the Northern Territory by increasing our capacity to service an increased domestic supply of gas.
This leads to the member for Nelson’s questions regarding the use of gas in the household. The issue is, basically, supply and demand. If we increase the supply of gas it makes it more possible for alternate markets to be sourced. At this point, there is not the known gas available. All that is brought to the surface is already secured. Rather than note there was opportunity to reserve some of that for future purpose; that has not been the case.
The best mechanism would be to increase domestic demand which would increase supply. As we have seen in the US, when you have increased supply you put downward pressure on demand. That is the rationale. The effect of that, and a very important consideration, is the economic benefits it can potentially bring to remote communities. Many of the smaller reserves that are known or prospective are in remote places. They may not be of a quantity significant enough to warrant bringing to the surface with an international market in mind, but if there are domestic options it provides the capacity for an explorer to consider bringing to the surface smaller reserves. There are smaller reserves and many of those are not far from a number of our remote communities.
Therein is the other effect of going down this path; you can increase economic activity in places remote from Darwin. That is something we want to achieve and if a pipeline - important infrastructure - is constructed across the Barkly, for example, it brings into play known reserves in that area which are not very difficult to bring into a pipeline. It is exactly what has happened in the US.
I commend the minister for having a very close look at lessons learnt and opportunities presented through the US experience, particularly in Dakota. Be prepared to learn from those lessons, ensure we recognise this opportunity and manage it well. The opportunity is there with reserves, and is heightened when you have increased access to market through a pipeline. That is what has happened in the US and what should happen here.
A pipeline from Katherine to Gove presents the same opportunity. There are already explorers in and around that area who now see that if a pipeline is constructed they could bring gas to surface into that pipeline and be shareholders beneficiaries, or partners in this project. That is exactly what we predicted would happen, and what is happening. There will be reports on that in due time.
These are important steps in dealing with a real issue presented to the new Territory government. We have put the Territory in a much stronger position as a result of due diligence by doing a thorough assessment of what is available, what is known, what is invested in exploration, what level of skin in the game - for another way of saying it for those who are exploring such as Santos - and then taking it to the next stage to increase domestic demand. It means we will increase supply and, to broaden it out into a wider context, it gives us increased opportunity.
This matter of the expanded pipeline has been put on the COAG agenda and a report is being prepared. We are in regular contact with the Australian Pipeline Industry Association which is preparing and supporting work on the economics of such a proposition. That is progressing well, as I mentioned at the beginning, with Peter Anderson, the Chief Executive of the Australian Chamber of Commerce. On their agenda, going into the next federal election, is infrastructure. This will be very important infrastructure. I commend Julia Ross and Greg Bicknell, both from the Chamber of Commerce, for their consideration of these important projects for the Northern Territory, and their acceptance to provide further lobbying through whatever channels and means we have available to us to improve this type of infrastructure. With the potential of gas, you have to have access to market and you need that infrastructure.
If we continue down this path, as I and this government are resolved to do, we can ensure the benefits flow - not to create a two-speed economy, because this provides the opportunity for benefit to remote communities. That is something that is of particular interest to this Country Liberals government.
Mr Deputy Speaker, with that said, I thank the honourable member for his statement. We are headed for exciting days. We are not talking about great opportunity and big projects and how exciting all this is. For anyone who is listening to this, they would see we are considering the opportunity and planning well for it: understanding risks that may be there, managing that risk well, and coming up with strategies and plans that will advantage the Territory and ensure we strengthen the Territory economy - not accentuate the two-speed economy but to ensure we respond with affordable housing when it is in urban settings, and to increase infrastructure in remote places so remote communities can be involved in real jobs around exploration and production of gas.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister very much for bringing this statement to the House. It is a very important statement. I see his interest in gas and oil development in the Territory. I also thank him for putting on the record the achievements of the Labor government for the past 10 years because it was that Labor government that put the Territory on the map and made it a destination for mining exploration, and exploration for oil and gas. I also thank him very much for using our slogan ‘The Territory is open for business’. That is what we said for 10 years, and still say.
Of course, it was the Labor government that found the situation of seven mines about to close, and hundreds and hundreds of mining exploration applications sitting on desks because the ministers from the previous government wanted to play games with the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act and try to stop any exploration, trying to blame the Indigenous people for stopping the economic development of the Territory.
It was the Labor government that went Australia-wide and overseas to promote the Territory. It was the Labor government which put in place a policy about attracting investment from China, Korea, and Japan. It was the Labor government which visited China twice a year and presented a number of projects to the Chinese - in their own language, and this is the booklet I took with me and presented to the Chinese - promoting different projects in the Territory, from uranium to oil and gas. It was our Labor government that made it even easier for the Chinese by developing a booklet in Mandarin on how to do business in Australia with the assistance of the Chinese Embassy in Canberra.
I thank the minister very much for using those two booklets on his recent trip to China. The fact that they were drafted by a previous government does not make these booklets bad; it makes them a very useful tool. I am pretty sure the department will work to improve those booklets and make them more relevant and more contemporary so that Labor government initiative will continue.
It was also the Labor government that thought first about the oil and gas supply established in Darwin to supply the region. It was unfortunate it was the CLP government’s renewal board that put the brakes on that supply base by considering it risky, expensive and not a very good idea, and is currently reviewing it. I was very surprised the minister did not know. His ministerial office obviously did not advise him of this situation.
It is a very important statement because oil and gas in the Territory will have a significant impact on the society and economy of the Territory. We say mining contributes about 20% of the gross state product and employs 4000 people. If what we believe will happen with oil and gas does happen, onshore and offshore, mining and oil and gas may contribute to even more of our gross state product and employ many more people in the Territory.
Let us look at the oil and gas situation. Oil and gas can be divided into two areas. Some is discovered and exploited from offshore gas fields such as Ichthys, Bayu-Undan, and Greater Sunrise, and some may develop onshore.
We have often heard about the gas reservation policy. Governments put in place a policy whereby if a company discovers gas, so much of this gas has to be sold onshore in that state for use in industry. That is what Western Australia did when they first discovered gas in the 1970s and 1980s. The then government created a gas reservation policy to retain that gas in Western Australia, not because they could not sell it overseas - they could - but the price of gas at the time was very depressed because oil and coal was much cheaper. At the same time, Western Australia wanted to develop the offshore gas industry and some industry which was energy hungry in Western Australia; for example, an aluminium factory in the south of Perth. They also wanted to bring gas into big cities such as Perth.
The difference between Western Australia and the Territory is that Western Australia has a large land mass but it also has a significant population, mainly in the south of the state. It also has difficulties of cold weather. The Northern Territory has a significant land mass and a very small population, and our weather is totally different from Western Australia’s, apart from Central Australia.
We talk about the household use of gas, but the reality of the Northern Territory is the only way to use gas is for cooking. With the Renewable Energy Initiative, most of our hot water systems are powered by the sun. Also, there is not cold weather so people do not require gas for heating. Most of Perth’s hot water, cooking and heating is done with natural gas - $1.5m. The big difference between Western Australia and the Northern Territory is that while Western Australia has massive industries like the aluminium industry and fertiliser, the Northern Territory does not. If you try to sell gas in the Northern Territory you will not have the industry to take it, while in Western Australia they require more and more gas for their local industry.
The other issue with the gas reservation policy is that most of the gas that comes to the Territory does not come from Territory waters. It comes from Western Australian waters, Commonwealth-Territory managed waters, or Commonwealth waters.
A gas reservation policy would not be successful for the simple reason other states might challenge our right to put a reservation on their gas. When a company discovers gas and brings it onshore to convert to LNG, the company does not own the resource, it only utilises it. It is the state that owns the resource. The gas that comes to the Northern Territory from Ichthys, Bayu-Undan or Blacktip is owned by Western Australia and it only comes here to be processed. It would be very interesting to find out how the Northern Territory can legally impose a gas reservation policy on gas that comes from other states.
That could be a different story, of course, if the Northern Territory government or any government put a gas reservation policy on gas produced onshore. That gas would clearly be owned by the Northern Territory and then the government can implement a policy. But would it be wise to implement a policy like this on a gas development in the Northern Territory? The Northern Territory onshore gas industry is still in the exploration stage; we do not have a well producing yet apart from Mereenie gas field. It would be very difficult to attract companies here if they have to face a gas reservation policy.
At the moment, the price of gas sold overseas is much higher than the companies in Australia are prepared to pay. Many companies in Australia demand gas for domestic use, but the reality is many companies like INPEX, when they wanted to sell their resource in the past and were looking for buyers, the price they took from Japan, China, or America was significantly higher than the Australian industry was prepared to pay for that gas. It is a reasonable sense of free market economy. You cannot ask somebody to sell you a resource for which they can get more money somewhere else because, if we do that for oil and gas, what about extending it to other industries?
Another issue I raise is we are on the verge - I agree with the minister - of significant discoveries. The indication we get from Armour Energy’s exploration in the McArthur Basin – from one well only – is they are talking about 130.7 BCF. Hess and Falcon, exploring in Beetaloo Basin, are not talking about one, two or three BCF, like Bayu-Undan, they are not talking about seven TCF, like Ichthys, they are talking about 162 TCF …
Mr Westra van Holthe: I know Kon, I mentioned that in my speech.
Mr VATSKALIS: Of course, you know that because the department provided you this information, the same way it was provided it to us.
We are on the verge of significant discoveries in the Territory. But the discoveries onshore come from other sources as well. Recently, in South Australia, near Coober Pedy, a company made a significant discovery of gas similar to the one in Beetaloo Basin. There would be a glut of gas in Australia, the same way there was a glut of gas in the United States.
I recall very well when Bayu-Undan was arranging the sale of the LNG from Darwin to different companies around the world, the price of gas was significantly high because there was significant demand, especially from California in the United States, which had recently changed their legislation to either renewable energy or clean energy. LNG was seen as very clean fuel to fuel their power stations. Since then, there have been such significant discoveries of shale oil and gas in the United States the price of gas in the United States has decreased and, from a nett importer of gas now the United States has become an exporter of gas. Recently, we heard news that BP and other companies were selling LNG from shale gas from America to the national markets and, in this way, supressing the international market of gas.
The other issue I point out is that gas to Gove became very contemporary and hit the headlines recently, but there are some issues about gas to Gove that arose in 2003-04. That was when Woodside was the owner of Blacktip. There were negotiations with Alcan to sell gas so Alcan would convert the refinery in Gove to gas. At the time, I was advised by Woodside that the price Alcan was prepared to pay for the Blacktip gas was so low that Woodside walked away from the negotiation table and finally sold their resource to Eni, which then successfully sold it to Power and Water.
There was other misinformation about the gas to Gove. When the Chief Minister was panicking about comments made around the Territory and Australia about him dithering to make a decision about providing gas to Gove, he tried to blame the Labor government and the then Chief Minister, Paul Henderson; he said he did not make a decision about providing gas to Gove. He gave publicity to part of a letter the then Chief Minister, Paul Henderson sent to Sandeep Biswas, the CEO of Pacific Aluminium, saying the Labor government was prepared to give only four years of gas to Gove. This is not true. What the Chief Minister said in his letter - I seek leave to table that letter.
Leave granted.
Mr VATSKALIS: It said the government at the time was prepared to give four years of gas to Gove from Power and Water gas. It also advised there was about three years’ supply from the Mereenie fields to complement that gas. In addition, it was prepared to provide supply for 10 years if, at the time, Pacific Aluminium had met some conditions outlined in relation to the gas; for example, that Pacific Aluminium had secured heads of agreement with a gas supplier to deliver an agreed volume, and the heads of agreement was matched by a heads of agreement with the Northern Territory which would allow any additional Power and Water Corporation gas to be sold back at no additional cost to ensure adequate gas for the Power and Water Corporation.
Paul Henderson, the then Chief Minister, said they could have the four years they were asking for, and was prepared to give up to 10 years of gas supply subject to having an agreement with a gas supplier to acquire gas and return this gas to the Northern Territory government for Power and Water to continue power generation.
I heard the Chief Minister’s idea of a national grid to provide gas around Australia. I agree with him; Australia needs a national grid. I find it crazy having significant supplies of gas in Western Australia, near Moomba by Santos, and isolated supplies in the Northern Territory, but nothing to take this gas from one corner of the continent to the other. We know the gas supply from Moomba will decline soon and there will be requirements for new gas supplies to be discovered to supply gas to the eastern seaboard. The best way to do that is create a grid by connecting the existing pipeline, which starts in Alice Springs and finishes in Darwin, to Moomba. The distance between Moomba and Alice Springs is between 450 km and 500 km.
In contrast, his idea of bringing a pipeline from Mount Isa has some significant difficulties. It is a repeat of the big extension corridor the CLP was proposing to bring power from Queensland in 2005. Let us look at the pipeline from Mount Isa to Tennant Creek - distance about 1000 km. My information is the gas pipeline that brings gas to Mount Isa is very small and will need a significant upgrade to bring gas to Mount Isa and extend it to the Northern Territory. Where is the gas going? Is it going from Queensland to the Territory or from the Territory to Queensland? If it is going from the Territory to Queensland, what for? Will it be used for generating power? Currently, Queensland generates significant power using coal, which can be much cheaper than power generated by gas. There are questions to be addressed. What would be the cost to build this pipeline? How long will it take? What will be the implications of native title in Queensland and the Northern Territory?
It will not happen tomorrow and will not be cheap. It will be much cheaper to join a pipeline from the Northern Territory to the network in Moomba which is spread out to South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales, and Queensland, rather than bring a pipeline from Mount Isa. Let us not forget the Alice Springs to Darwin pipeline is in a cleared corridor 100 m wide. There is no native title or Indigenous interest; that was done 20 years ago. If you want a bigger pipeline or more pipelines there it would be very easy to do.
I am very pleased the minister brought this statement to the House not only because it complements the achievements of a previous Labor government, but because gas development is significant, not only for the party in government in the Northern Territory but for the whole Northern Territory.
That is the reason I have accepted an invitation to attend an oil and gas conference in Sydney in March to promote the Northern Territory as the place to do business if you are interested in oil and gas. At that conference, first of all, I will advise our party has no intention of introducing a gas reservation policy. Most importantly, I will ask Woodside to bring gas from the Browse Basin to the Northern Territory utilising the pipeline that INPEX will be putting in place. Everybody in Western Australia knows the proposal by Colin Barnett to develop a gas hub in the Kimberleys will not happen; it will not work for many reasons, not only through the resistance by the Green movement, but also through opposition by Indigenous interests in the area.
The gas field that Woodside has in the Browse Basin is about 300 km from Ichthys. It would be much cheaper to bring a pipeline to Ichthys and join with the INPEX pipeline, rather than trying to bring that pipeline to Karratha or establish an LNG floating platform. One thing that INPEX and ConocoPhillips said about the Northern Territory is they had certainty in the Northern Territory.
I am prepared to acknowledge that the CLP, in 1999-2000, did the work to bring ConocoPhillips to Darwin. Paul Henderson and Clare Martin did exactly the same work to bring INPEX here with great success. As I said before, oil and gas is very important for the development of the Territory and the development of employment in the Territory.
I share the same concerns as the member for Nelson about the news today in The Australian, ‘Territory call to reform land rights mining veto’. The submission by the Department of Mines and Energy to the commission for review of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act is to remove the right of veto from Indigenous people. I am really concerned because, if this is the case, probably Koongarra in Kakadu would be mined for uranium. If people do not have the right to veto development in other areas that should not be touched, then these things will happen.
I agree with the Central Land Council Director, David Ross, who said that some of the delays ...
Ms FYLES: Madam Speaker, I move the member for Casuarina be given an extension of time.
Mr GILES: Speaking to the point of order, I am wondering what standing order number that is?
Ms FYLES: It is 77.
Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated, member for Braitling.
Motion agreed to.
Mr VATSKALIS: We know very well that some companies put in an application for exploration and go out to the market to raise some of these funds. That might take time - 10 months, two years, or three years. It is unfair to blame Indigenous people for delaying the project when it is the action of the exploration company that creates the delays.
I am really concerned about calling for removing the right of veto and wonder if the Indigenous members opposite were consulted before this proposal was put in the submission by the department. I am pretty sure they were not consulted because, if they were, they would voice their strong opposition to this proposal. I urge the government to consult with Indigenous people of the Territory and, most of all, with the four Indigenous members sitting opposite, on whether they agree to the removal of the right of veto by Indigenous people to exploration and mining in their areas.
I am familiar with Indigenous people really wanting what we take for granted in other places in Australia. They want the jobs, the cars, the good houses, and a secure future for them and their children.
Yes, member for Nelson, there are companies that already fly-in fly-out people from Indigenous communities to mine sites. Newman is one that flies people from Yuendumu to their site in Tanami, and flies them back, or busses people in and out. That is the reason about 14% of their employees are Indigenous people from the area.
The oil and gas developments onshore in the Territory provide unique opportunities for Indigenous people to be employed near their communities. Hess and Falcon are doing exploration in the Beetaloo Basin in the middle of the Northern Territory, Armour Energy is in the McArthur Basin, very near Borroloola, and other areas near Alice Springs and Tennant Creek are the places where jobs are not as available. However, these are the places where Indigenous people can work. They can go there in the morning and be at home in the afternoon like every other Territorian and Australian.
It is a good statement because it highlights the potential of the Territory. I say again, this is not about Labor or Country Liberal Party achievements, this should be about Territory achievements. I concur with the minister; I have no problem with him travelling to the other side of the world to promote the Territory as a place to do business for oil and gas. I have no problem with him using material which was developed during our time in government. I urge you to develop that material.
Madam Speaker, when the time comes I might have to use that material when I go on a trip to promote mining because, despite what people opposite say, I have no intention of leaving Casuarina. I do not think many of you would like another 70% result in another seat. I will be around for a while and will be advocating for mining, and oil and gas in the Territory during my time in parliament.
Mr GILES (Transport): Madam Speaker, I really look forward to standing on the Casuarina booth in a short period of time after the current member makes his decision about what he will do. He is in the departure lounge looking at that chair over there.
I thank the minister for bringing this statement on; it is a very important statement. It is very encouraging to see the minister being so proactive in the area of oil and gas. People around Australia and the world breathed a sigh of relief when the Country Liberals took government in late August last year because they now know the Territory is open for business. They know we have a proactive government which wants business.
You simply have to look over the last 11 years and see how many new mines started: one, according to the member for Katherine, the Minister for Mines and Energy. We want to have a productive Territory. We do not want to be economic vandals like the previous Labor government. We want to be a government that balances the importance of our natural beauty - that being the environment - and the development of industry around the oil and gas sectors in the creation of energy.
As a member from Central Australia, I look forward to the opportunities in Central Australia. I know our reserves there are quite substantial. All I ask of the minister is please do not let us be, for want of a better term, somewhat of a pit. I would like to see upstream and downstream value-adding where we can accommodate the best opportunities, promote the growth of the economy, and build jobs.
I know of a few opportunities coming up in the near future. I have been actively promoting the opportunities around processing some of those materials in Central Australia, rather than being what people refer to as the quarry. The Northern Territory, where necessary, fulfils a quarry arrangement but where the opportunities are there we have to add value upstream and downstream. I will be advocating for that. I want as many jobs created in Alice Springs and Central Australia as possible. That is my vested interest as a local member from Alice Springs. The member for Katherine, the Minister for Mines and Energy, knows that. He will be hearing it the same way other members hear different things from time to time ...
Mr Westra van Holthe: It is about building the economy.
Mr GILES: It is about building the economy and creating jobs. I will not add any more, member for Katherine. Congratulations on your statement. I look forward to more growth in business and economic development in the Northern Territory, particularly round the oil and gas sector. Let us bring processing facilities into Central Australia.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I thank all the members who have contributed to this statement. I thank them for their feedback and what they have said - some constructive and some non-constructive.
The members for Nelson and Casuarina raised an issue which I will deal with up-front: a report in The Australian which said the Northern Territory government is considering opposing the veto rights of Aboriginal people on their land. Assertions in that regard are absolutely false. I, our party, and this government respect the right of Aboriginal people to veto mining on their land. That right to veto exists under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act and it is beyond the sphere of influence of the Northern Territory government to change that.
To put a little context around those assertions which were made in the media, Part IV of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act is in the process of a review by Justice Mansfield. As a part of that review of Part IV, there was a call sent out to the Northern Territory government to provide its points of view of the non-financial impediments to mining and exploration in the Northern Territory.
The document produced by the Northern Territory stated as a matter of fact that, indeed, Aboriginal people have the right to veto mining on Aboriginal land. There was no suggestion whatsoever in the submissions the Northern Territory made that suggest we are, in any way, against the rights of Aboriginal people to veto mining. I can safely put that one to bed for the benefit of the members for Nelson and Casuarina, and for other interested parties.
I notice there has been some commentary on that issue by the Central Land Council, and the Australian Wilderness Society issued a media release this afternoon. They are basing their media release clearly on an article that was in The Australian today which made no direct quotes or reference to members of the Northern Territory government. In fact, I was not contacted by The Australian for any comment on this at all.
With that issue put to bed, I will touch on a few of the other issues raised. I noted the Opposition Leader - the one who would have tried to negotiate gas to Gove by sitting on a telephone in her office - gave her usual standard of commentary this afternoon. I want to go to one particular point around INPEX.
The former Chief Minister, Paul Henderson - and, by default, his lackey as a result of the deal done by the member for Nelson during the last term of government, that being the current Leader of the Opposition - love to take wonderful credit for INPEX coming to Darwin. What we really need to remember is all the work that was done in securing INPEX was largely done by the former, former Chief Minister, Clare Martin, ably supported by Paul Tyrell.
It is always very convenient for those opposite to regale themselves with the fanfare and adorn themselves with the jewels of the INPEX decision, but the Opposition Leader needs to remember, as do all those opposite, that the work was not done by Paul Henderson, but by Clare Martin. After all the hard work Clare Martin put in, she was the one summarily executed by Paul Henderson and company in those heady days of the Labor government. That is all I want to touch on with that.
The member for Casuarina also touched on a few issues and I refer specifically to one. The speech, which I largely wrote and read time and time again before it was delivered here this afternoon, made no mention at all of a gas reservation policy. The member for Casuarina is talking down the Territory. I have heard members opposite do it many times. By mentioning the spectre of a gas reservation policy he is trying to send fears and chills down the spines of potential investors and companies looking to set up in the Northern Territory.
I had not mentioned once during my speech - and I do not think anybody on this side of the House this afternoon has mentioned - a gas reservation policy. The member for Casuarina is not only scaremongering, he is completely irresponsible in the way he delivers these messages to the parliament and the Northern Territory. The former Labor government is famous for introducing the concept of sovereign risk into the Northern Territory, which was done around their sudden announcement they would not support a uranium mine at Angela Pamela. Those utterances of the then Chief Minister, Paul Henderson, sent enormous shockwaves around the investment community across the globe. For the first time ever, in my knowledge anyway, the concept of sovereign risk was introduced to the Northern Territory by Paul Henderson and the previous Labor government.
The member for Casuarina is, once again, attempting to stir the little fibres of worry and fear amongst those in the investment community who are looking to invest in the Territory and might think twice. I am not even thinking about a gas reservation policy. I am thinking about doing something the former government did not; that is, work on the construction of an energy directorate.
This energy directorate will be high-level, will be made up of experts in the field, and will most likely include people like energy economists, resource experts and people who have an intimate knowledge of upstream and downstream processes, markets, and where they are available. It will be a high-level group providing strategic advice on energy policy to the minister. That is where we are going with that. I will not look at tiny chunks of policy in isolation. This is too important to the Northern Territory. We need to get this right for the future of the Territory and the people who live here.
All politics aside, I sincerely ask the member for Casuarina to think very carefully before he injects those suggestions into the debate. It is irresponsible, member for Casuarina, and I implore you to not do it.
The former Mines minister, the member for Casuarina, also spoke about a pipeline to Mount Isa. He thought the Moomba option might be better. I am not quite sure why; perhaps he needs a briefing. The concept which will be explored by this government and supported with $1m for a feasibility study by the federal opposition, if elected in September, will be to look at a gas pipeline which could connect the north/south pipeline in the Northern Territory to Mount Isa. There would be good reason for looking to the east. First, it connects a greater network of gas pipelines into the grid. Not only that, it makes sense to look at that as an option in light of what one might refer to as some of the stranded resources which exist in the Barkly region.
Of course, the Wonara project on the Barkly Highway would stand to benefit. While one was clearing the land use for a gas pipeline across that corridor - lo and behold - one might also clear a corridor for a train line. I do not think anyone on the other side mentioned anything like that.
I can assure the people of the Northern Territory that this Northern Territory government is prepared to look long and hard at the big picture future strategic ideas for the Northern Territory. A gas pipeline going east would be one. What else can we do with it? Why not look at a train line or at least clear the corridor at the same time? That is future planning and something the former Labor government simply was not very good at, which is why I made that impassioned plea to the new members across the other side to think beyond election cycles.
The member for Casuarina also spoke, in the context of this suggestion around removing veto rights for Aboriginal people on ALRA land, a little about the Koongarra project. The former minister needs to get a briefing. If he were up to date with his knowledge base he would know the Koongarra land is in the process of being repatriated into Kakadu National Park, so it is under veto at the moment. He probably does not know that, but it is under veto and it has another two or three years to go. In any case, as a Northern Territory government, we cannot affect what happens in that patch of land. It is suggested that the Commonwealth government is very keen and has introduced legislation in the federal parliament to have that bit of Koongarra placed back into Kakadu National Park which would, in effect, veto it forever and a day. I guess the member for Casuarina probably needs to get a little more contemporary knowledge and understanding of the current situation with a few of the mineral leases around the Northern Territory.
I also pick up on something the member for Braitling mentioned about downstream processing. He is quite right in what he said. The member for Braitling is amongst a very strong group of people on this side of the House passionate about building the Territory’s economy, and is looking at all sorts of ways to do that. Of course, downstream processing of gas is one area that could, potentially, benefit the Territory enormously.
I did not mention it in my statement, but I will mention now that while I was in the United States I took the opportunity to have some time in Freeport in Texas, where Dow Chemicals has an enormous downstream gas processing plant. From memory, they occupy about 200 000 acres of land on their lease at Freeport where they operate the gas plant with 65 different downstream processors of gas products. What is wonderful about what they do is everything that goes in comes out as some other product; there is virtually no waste and everything is consumed. It is just a matter of taking a by-product from something that is made, sending it to another part of the plant, adding another chemical to it and processing it and - lo and behold! - you have something else useful that comes out the other end. I am very interested in that concept, which is why I took the time to go to the Dow Chemicals’ plant and have a look at what they are doing.
There is no doubt in my mind that the future of the Northern Territory in oil and gas is very bright. We have quite a number of companies operating in the Territory onshore and offshore. The member for Casuarina must be reading my mind; I have also been considering Woodside and what is happening with them in relation to Western Australia. It is something that is well and truly at the front and centre of my radar because we recognise the Northern Territory, under a Country Liberals government, does not pose any sovereign risk. We are willing to work very hard with oil and gas producers, partners, and investors to try to bring every opportunity onshore to the Northern Territory.
In a short space of time, I have spent quite a number of days travelling to achieve that, sitting in boardrooms talking to people, trying to prick their interest in the Northern Territory. That is something I managed to achieve, fortunately, at the Houston Energy Conference. The speech I delivered as a keynote speaker was extremely well received.
My Department of Mines and Energy has received numerous calls arising from my attendance at that conference from companies interested in finding out more about the Northern Territory. They are looking to spread their operations across the globe into places that are friendly to invest in, that have governments that are willing to talk to them and facilitate what they want to do, and are prepared to put in the hard yards.
I am selling the Territory at every opportunity. I have had many meetings with many different companies over time. The singular message I have for them is that this government is pro-development; we want to see things happen.
Oil and gas sits within the resources sector. It is an important part of the economy, as I said. I pick up on something the Leader of the Opposition said. She said not once did I mention the three-hub economy. Do I need to stand here every time and say three-hub economy, three-hub economy, three-hub economy? They should get it. Clearly, they do because the Opposition Leader is echoing the words we have been using since coming to government and in the lead-up to the election in 2008. I am glad the Country Liberals’ message is sinking into the head of the Opposition Leader. She should heed what we say. I am pleased that message is getting out, Leader of the Opposition; our marketing is clearly working.
Madam Speaker, I again thank everyone for their contributions to this statement. This is a vitally important part of the Northern Territory’s economy. As the Minister for Mines and Energy, I will be working in a strategic and tactical sense every day, every week, every month that I am able to fulfil this role as the minister. The message I will send to the investment community is that this Northern Territory government is ready to do business with them.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Opportunities for the Northern Territory’s Agribusiness and Minerals Sectors in the Asian Century
Opportunities for the Northern Territory’s Agribusiness and Minerals Sectors in the Asian Century
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I am doing a lot of talking today. I will describe the tremendous and growing opportunities for Northern Territory agribusiness exports and investment in Territory minerals exploration in this, the Asian century.
The Northern Territory government has identified food exports as a key component of its plan to develop a strong three-hub economy. There you go, Leader of the Opposition, I hope you are satisfied now. I have mentioned three-hub economy - great stuff. The message is sinking in over there, is it not?
The Territory’s primary producers are widespread from the Lyndavale Cattle Station in the south to Acacia Hills mango farm in the north, to Desert Garden Produce at Rainbow Valley selling delicacies in Coles supermarkets, and even the Kalano community farm near Katherine producing product for Woolies.
The member for Daly prompted me to commend the Kalano farm for what they are doing. They are producing what has been described as the best tomatoes the Katherine Woolworths has ever seen, as well as corn, which is highly in demand.
While I am talking about the different corners of the Northern Territory where our agribusiness is working so well, of course, the Mango Farm at the Daly is owned and operated by the good member for Daly. Welcome on board. I have had the opportunity to sample your mangoes and enjoy your hospitality, member for Daly, and it is wonderful.
These are just a few of the dedicated food producers working hard every day across the Northern Territory. In 2010-11, the Territory produced $448m worth of agricultural products, which is an outstanding achievement given our small population and challenging climate. Cattle and other livestock represented $285.3m, and horticultural crops represented $138.7m.
This government is determined to see a prosperous and healthy primary industry sector in the Territory. The recent mini-budget shows that determination. In December 2012, I announced an overall increase of $1.084m to the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries, as I want my department to be delivering for industry. Appropriate funding is, of course, the first step.
In September 2012, I made my first visit to Indonesia, and in November I represented this government and the Northern Territory on a visit to China. During these visits I saw first-hand the incredible transformation taking place across Asia. By the end of this decade, Asia will be the world’s largest consumer of goods and services. In the decades to come it will be home to the world’s largest middle class. This growing consumer group will demand high-quality food products, and this government wants to ensure the Territory benefits from meeting that demand.
In December 2012, the Chief Minister, the Minister for Business and I made an important visit to Indonesia. This government is committed to building and strengthening the Northern Territory ties with our closest Asian neighbour which are clearly of vital importance to our regional economy.
The Indonesian Archipelago is widespread and it takes six-and-a-half hours to fly from one end to the other. Indonesia boasts a rich culture and a multiracial population of almost 240 million people. In fact, I believe it might be a little more than that now. Its islands have the second-highest biodiversity on earth. Many Territorians have visited Indonesia and may also have personal and family ties there.
The opportunities for increased trade between the Territory and Indonesia are great, particularly when it comes to live cattle. Indonesia’s middle class grew from 38% to 56% between 2003 and 2010. Many middle-class Indonesians prefer fine cuisine to street hawkers.
While Indonesia has fertile volcanic soils and can feed itself easily despite its huge population, it is mountainous and does not have the extensive rangelands like the Northern Territory on which to breed cattle. That is why the live export trade represents such a good partnership between efficient cattle breeding operations in northern Australia and labour-intensive feedlots in Southeast Asia.
The Territory cattle industry is worth more than $280m a year, and the Northern Territory has approximately 220 pastoral leases and a cattle herd of approximately 2.1 million head. The pastoral industry turns off over 500 head annually, of which about half go to live export, with the majority going to Indonesia. However, the Australian government’s temporary trade suspension of live exports to Indonesia in 2011 and Indonesia’s reduction in import quotas, together with the strict enforcement of the 350 kg weight limit for feeder cattle, have had a significant impact on the Territory’s cattle industry.
This government is working collaboratively with the NT Cattlemen’s Association and the NT Livestock Exporters’ Association to build live cattle exports to Southeast Asia where there is tremendous scope for growth. For example, Indonesians currently eat 1.7 kg of beef per person per year. The Indonesian trade minister recently visited Canberra and suggested that, in the future, Indonesians will consume 20 kg of beef per person per year. To meet even a part of this demand, Indonesia will need to supplement its own cattle herd and increase imports of cattle. I would like to see the Territory exports grow to meet this future demand.
The Northern Territory starts from a position of strength in this respect. Respected organisations such as the NT Cattleman’s Association have built strong links with Indonesia, including exchange programs for students and farmers between the Territory and Indonesia.
This government is also making the relationship with Indonesia a top priority with the proposal to establish the AusIndo Forum. The forum will be established by government working with the Charles Darwin University, and will be designed to build and strengthen the relationship between Australia and Indonesia. We want to make Darwin a strategic meeting place between the two countries.
The Australian Agricultural Company, AACo, recently announced it will construct a new $85m abattoir in Livingstone 50 km south of Darwin. It will process 100 000 head of cattle per annum in Stage 1, with the capacity to handle 225 000 per annum once fully developed. This positive investment decision is most welcome and provides an opportunity for pastoralists across the north to sell cattle which are not suitable for the live export trade into the local slaughter facility. AACo has already started construction and the new meat processing facility will employ around 270 once operational. Boxed meat suitable for the halal trade will be available for sale. AACo has already indicated it is looking to sell its product in Asia and the United States of America.
The port of Darwin is a key component of the supply chain. That is why we are already in discussions with the Australia government about upgrading capacity.
The rise of China also represents vast new opportunities for trade and investment for Territorians. China’s urbanisation and industrialisation have led to the emergence of a wealthy middle class. With less household income being taken up by necessities, demand is growing for quality foodstuffs such as those the Territory can deliver.
In November 2012 in Beijing, I met with senior officials from China’s General Administration for Quality Supervision Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ). This organisation grants entry for food imports to China. I took the opportunity to present a wide range of agricultural products the NT currently produces, as well as some emerging products of the future.
During this meeting, it appeared much of the work done to date between Australia and AQSIQ relates to the cooler climate commodities such as dairy cattle, cherries and canola. However, I am determined to ensure Central and northern Australian producers also have opportunities to supply to the Chinese consumer market.
I see short- and medium-term opportunities for growing exports of Territory mangoes into China. Australia currently exports to 20 countries with the major markets being Hong Kong, New Zealand, Singapore and the United Arab Emirates. In the 2011-12 season, less than 10 000 tonnes of mangoes were exported and all of this went out of ports in Queensland, New South Wales and Western Australia. But, much of the export fruit came from the Territory.
The market access protocols for many markets require Australian fruit to be treated for fruit flies and facilities such as vapour, heat or irradiation disinfestation are not located in Darwin. Since the import protocol for Australian mangoes into China was granted in 2007, the supply of mangoes into China has grown and the relationship between grower/exporters and the Chinese importers has strengthened.
The Territory has some unique attributes for the production of excellent mangoes. We:
1. have very dry and warm conditions during the period of fruit development
2. plan to expand our production window from August through to February
3. will have three new varieties that will have excellent appeal to the Chinese consumer
4. have growers who are experienced in exporting
5. are working on alternative fruit fly market access protocols which, if successful, will negate the need for post-harvest disinfestation.
Melons - both watermelon and rockmelon – are the next major crop in the Territory with export opportunities. Many of our largest growers have farms across Australia, and usually export into Singapore out of ports in Melbourne or Sydney while producing in the NT.
Darwin’s attractiveness as a port for fresh food exports to Asia is expected to be boosted by greater availability of refrigerated containers in the future. The new AACo abattoir will need more of these refrigerated containers and my department is working with horticultural producers - mainly mango and melon growers - to identify the potential number of containers per week to meet export demand. A figure of 30 to 40 containers per week may be what is needed to attract a shipping company to expand its business and allow local producers to one day export directly from the Port of Darwin.
In the medium to long term, there are also opportunities for Territory packaged meat exports to China. Seafood exports to niche markets are also long-term possibilities for growing trade with China. China imported nearly $5bn worth of seafood in 2010, and Chinese seafood consumption is expected to triple by 2020. This government is committed to developing a sustainable contemporary seafood supply industry in the Territory, and with this development will come opportunities to tap into export markets.
While Northern Territory fisheries are not large, we produce a high-quality product and have the enviable position of not only having pristine waters, but a number of our fisheries are underutilised and have a capacity for growth. These include species such as shark, red snapper, mackerel and trepang. The government is committed to reducing the regulatory burden on Territory fishery business and will put in place procedures, policies, and legislation to ensure the Northern Territory regulatory environment is efficient and effective while enhancing its status as ecologically sustainable. This will create the necessary framework for industry sectors to maximise these potential opportunities.
I am pleased to say my first trip to China has increased my optimism about the export potential of Territory agribusiness. I have asked my department to build on contacts I made with officials in China because this government understands that long-term relationships are important to boosting trade.
However, the opportunities for our economy are not limited to growth in export markets. There is also a tremendous opportunity for the Northern Territory to engage with Chinese investors to stimulate our growing agricultural sector. This government has identified food as a key pillar to our economic future. The Western Australian government recently demonstrated how Chinese investment can work in the agricultural sector when it selected Kimberly Agricultural Investments, or KAI ...
Mr VATSKALIS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This is an important statement. I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Ring the bells.
There is a quorum.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
The Western Australian government recently demonstrated how Chinese investment can work with the agricultural sector when it selected Kimberly Agricultural Investment, or KAI, as its preferred proponent in the Ord region. KAI is a wholly-owned Shanghai company working with the Western Australian government to see how a new sugar industry can be established in the Ord irrigation scheme area, with the potential for expansion into the Territory.
This government has given the Ord development major project status. In the mini-budget, $400 000 funding was allocated to establish an Ord Development Unit in my department. In November 2012, the Chief Minister signed a memorandum of understanding with the Western Australian Premier, Hon Colin Barnett MLA and the Australian government Minister for Regional Australia, Hon Simon Crean MP, to collaborate and facilitate expansion and extension of the Ord irrigation scheme into the Northern Territory. It is about working together to capitalise on development opportunities. This is the first time an agricultural project has been granted major project status in the Northern Territory.
An across-agency task force has been established and work is already under way to get some of the key elements of this development started. There have been some preliminary meetings with the Northern Land Council as we seek to engage in respectful native title negotiations with the local Aboriginal custodians of the land in the Keep River and Knox Plain. The next steps will be crucial, and we are rolling up our sleeves to maximise the benefit of this opportunity for Territorians.
Solid Asian investment in agriculture in the NT is achievable and we are willing to see how much can be done. The Asian century represents many new opportunities. With their high incomes and advanced economies, Japan and South Korea remain important export markets for Australia. The Territory is proud of its links with Japan. I intend to make my first visit to Japan and South Korea in the first half of 2013 to strengthen these links and promote the NT’s primary producers. Countries such as India, Vietnam, Thailand and Malaysia also offer possibilities for trade due to their strong economic growth rates and young populations.
I take a moment to mention the Australia in the Asian Century White Paper released by the Commonwealth government in October 2012. The Territory plays a significant role in the recommendations of the White Paper reflecting our proximity to, and existing strong ties with, our Asian neighbours. The White Paper promised support for investment and transport infrastructure in northern Australia to assist food and agricultural exporters. This government looks forward to discussing the NT’s infrastructure needs with our federal counterparts.
The White Paper also recommends more ministerial engagement with counterparts in Asia, regular flows of people and ideas, and public servants with a sophisticated understanding of the region as well as Asian language capabilities. This new government is ahead of the game in those respects. The elevation of Asian engagement to the Chief Minister’s portfolio, the creation of an Office of Asian Engagement, a judicious program of visits to Asia, and the hosting of regular delegations from our neighbours are testament to the importance we place on engaging with Asia for the benefit of Territorians. My Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries has officers with solid experience in Asia and a suite of valuable contacts with their counterparts in other countries.
The Territory and Port of Darwin’s location, once disadvantaged due to its distance from the rest of Australia, now finds itself better placed than any other part of our country to benefit from the Asian century. The Territory’s primary industries are critically important to the future of our economy. Food exports are a key component of this government’s plan to develop a three-hub economy. This government has prioritised Asian engagement to build links and opportunities for Territorians.
A robust mining sector is another key element of this government’s plan to develop a strong three-hub economy in the NT. There is no doubt the mining industry is fundamentally important to the Territory. In 2011-12, this sector accounted for 19% of the NT’s economy, the single biggest contributor by far. The actual contribution of mining to our economy is even greater when you consider the additional contributions made by mining and energy-related processing and downstream activities, or the indirect contribution to the economy of mining service and support industries. Mining directly employs more than 4000 people, including many Indigenous Territorians, with many more people employed in related industries.
Yet, while these figures all attest to the strength and importance of the NT’s mining industry today, this government is committed to growing the resources sector in order to increase the future prosperity and development of the Territory, particularly our regional areas. That means boosting minerals and energy exploration across the NT in the short term so new discoveries can be made which will become the new mining projects of tomorrow.
Minerals exploration is not cheap and not without risk. Junior exploration companies that are active in the NT seeking tomorrow’s big discoveries find it difficult to attract funding within Australia at this time. In recent times, Chinese investors have proved willing to invest in the Territory’s minerals exploration. Since 2007, local exploration projects have secured over $200m in investment from China.
I am pleased to announce a significant new investment deal signed in January this year that will benefit local exploration. As a direct result of the investment attraction service the Department of Mines and Energy provides to NT exploration projects, TUC Resources has entered into an alliance with the Shandong Provincial Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources for a $21.25m investment. This alliance will drive exploration at the Stromberg rare earth project near Pine Creek. This is an exciting development and I congratulate both parties on their agreement and commitment to exploration in the Territory. This kind of investment is vital to realise the NT’s rich minerals potential, especially during tough economic times when traditional funding sources are harder for local explorers to access. Our investment attraction efforts operate in a highly competitive environment for investment dollars, both nationally and internationally.
In November last year, I led an industry delegation to China to promote opportunities for investing in local exploration and mining projects. Those from industry who joined the delegation represented exploration projects with a potential to benefit communities throughout Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine and the rest of Central Australia. This government is committed to ensuring all parts of the Territory benefit from the growth of the mining sector. The delegation was very well received. It is estimated my department organised a total of more than 100 meetings with potential Chinese investors for the six exploration companies on the trip. There have already been tangible results with negotiations under way to secure investment deals for at least two of those six companies. While it can take months or even years for investment agreements to be finalised, these early signs are very promising.
It is six years since my department started to promote minerals investment opportunities in China. With six years of learning available, I believe it is time for us to see what we can learn from that experience to date to achieve even more for NT explorers.
Much may also have changed in China during that time. China’s 12th five-year guideline was adopted in 2011 with significant new priorities such as a shift in investment from coastal areas towards rural and inland areas. During my time in China last year, a once-in-a-generation leadership change took place that will lead new policy direction for that nation.
I want to ensure my department of Mines and Energy strategy reflects the opportunity presented by today’s China as well as the new Territory government’s priorities. To that end, I have directed my department to develop a revitalised strategy for attracting Chinese investment into the NT minerals projects.
I will explain why Asia’s growth story presents so many opportunities for the Territory. According to the Australia in the Asian Century White Paper the combined output of China and India is likely to exceed that of the whole Group of Seven countries by early in the next decade. The economic growth of China and India is driven by mass urbanisation and industrialisation at staggering rates. Even the low growth scenarios for both India and China see their economies growing by more than 6% per annum to 2025. Achieving mass urbanisation and industrialisation requires natural resources the Territory is highly prospective for.
Steelmaking is at the heart of both urbanisation and industrialisation. The NT has many commodities crucial to steelmaking including iron ore, manganese, nickel, vanadium, molybdenum and niobium. My department sees strong potential for investment from overseas in these resources. I am informed that China holds very strong investment interest for iron ore, manganese, and niobium in particular, while India is likely to be very interested in securing nickel and niobium supplies for its growing steelmaking industries.
Beyond steelmaking there are also resources used more broadly in the construction activity needed to achieve urbanisation. Copper, titanium, zinc and uranium are all in demand to support the changes taking place in India and China. This demand has the potential to lead to investment in Territory projects for those economies.
I do not know what has happened to the clock, Madam Speaker, it has stopped.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, you have unlimited time on a ministerial statement.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Thank you, Madam Speaker, I will continue. I should have made it a few more pages long.
It is not only investors from the emerging economies of China and India that may provide the investment needed to grow the NT’s exploration sector. Japan and South Korea are already among the world’s most advanced economies. While their economies will grow at more modest rates than those of China and India, there is good reason to consider them potential sources of investment for Territory exploration projects.
Both Japan and South Korea are at the forefront of high technology, electronics and green industries and are determined to maintain that leadership. Those industries need commodities neither Japan nor South Korea possess such as rare earth elements, lithium, copper, tantalum and silver. The NT has the potential to be a secure and stable supplier of those resources.
Last, the Territory has the potential to provide the potash and phosphate many countries throughout Asia need to improve the quality of their farmland and boost food production for their large populations.
As well as developing an updated strategy for attracting minerals investment from China, my Department of Mines and Energy is preparing plans to capitalise on the opportunities for the NT presented by the resource needs of Japan, South Korea and, in the medium to long term, India. Engaging with these key markets regularly is important to build the personal relationships and trust needed to secure investment.
I outline some of the concrete actions this government will take in 2013 to attract international investment into our minerals sector. I am excited to announce, in May 2013, this government will host the Australia China Minerals Investment Summit in Darwin. This event will bring over 100 Chinese investors to meet with local explorers and Territory business people to discuss investment opportunities. My department is working closely with other government agencies, including Tourism NT and the Department of Business, to ensure the broader local economy can benefit from this event. Some of the large industry associations I met with in China are actively promoting this event to their members. That is important because those associations also represent companies outside the mining industry. In May 2013, the Australia China Minerals Investment Summit will also present the opportunity to promote investment in Territory projects in other areas such as agriculture, infrastructure, international education and tourism, all of which are crucial to this government’s plan for a three-hub economy.
This government aims to lead another minerals industry delegation to the China Mining Congress in Tianjin in November 2013 to link local explorers and business people with our investment contacts in China.
In November 2012, my department trialled a commodity targeted approach to identify investors which was very successful. This approach will be expanded in 2013. The benefit of this approach is it enables a smaller jurisdiction such as the NT to achieve results in a single annual visit. This allows us to compete for profile with other Australian state and territory governments which often have a permanent presence in China. It is all about doing more with less.
In regard to Japan and South Korea, my department will take an industry delegation to those countries in mid-2013 to maintain relationships and ensure the message is understood: under this government the Territory is ready to do business with them. The NT has a unique opportunity to build relations in these markets at a time when the world appears focused on China. We can assure investors in Japan and South Korea that the Territory is a stable and secure place to invest and this government is committed to Asia-wide engagement.
In this Asian century this government is committed to building a stronger engagement with our Asian neighbours than ever before. We recognise the future of trade and investment in the Northern Territory lies to our north.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of this statement.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, it is my great pleasure to speak to the minister’s statement. I start back to front because his portfolio is very similar to what I had previously and what I am shadow minister for today. I start with mining.
It is really good to listen to the minister again highlighting the achievements of the Labor government over the past 10 years. I note with interest he discovered that Asia extends beyond the shores of Indonesia. He discovered Japan, Korea, India and China. I congratulate him for that because the reality is the future of the Northern Territory, and indeed the future of Australia, is Asia. The Asian tigers are the ones who need our resources and who have the money to invest in our industry.
There are some people who are fearful of Asia taking over Australia. The reality is, they can come and do business here, but they cannot take anything with them back to Asia. Let us not forget there was a time when BHP invested in Chile and other Latin American countries, and nobody batted an eyelid in Australia; everybody was very proud an Australian company was investing in a foreign country. Now, we have to accept the fact that we do not live in different continents, different countries; we live in a global village. It is very easy for people living on the other side of the world to have interests in another country.
I highlight that I am very excited about the minister going to China and that he continues to promote the Territory in China because I said all along that China is the future of the Territory. At the same time, the minister can be proud of what he is doing, but we created the basis for it. It was the Labor government that managed to get the Territory in the Fraser Institute; the first of all jurisdictions in Australia to do business in mining. It was the Labor government, in our time, which managed to get the Territory 11th in the world as the place to do business in mining and exploration. I am very pleased he builds up on our past achievements. I wish him luck because it does not matter what happens or what government is in the Territory, being successful in selling the Territory overseas and attracting capital into the Territory means jobs and wealth for Territorians. I said before and I will say again: forget the political issues; I am quite happy to support any attempt, effort, or trip he makes to promote the Territory, especially with mining, oil and gas, and continue from that with agricultural development. I encourage the minister to continue his trips to China.
In the Territory in the past, we have shown other states in Australia we do not need to have a luxury office in Shanghai or Beijing; we can be there twice a year and do more than they achieve by having a permanent representative there. It is about targeting the right people in the right places, and selling the right commodities. We did our homework before we went there to find out what the Chinese wanted. They want iron ore, zinc, manganese, niobium, and uranium. That is exactly what we promoted when we went there. That is exactly why we took the right people with the right projects to the Chinese investors, and introduced a number of other companies from the Territory which needed the capital and a joint venture to be developed with companies like TCU and Shandong, and the T&G and ECE. The Chinese investors have the money and are prepared to invest in the Territory.
Speaking about investing in the Territory, it was a Chinese company that entered into a joint venture with an Australian company that exported the mineral sands on the Tiwi Islands. It is my understanding this Chinese company continues to invest in the Territory company for further exploration of the Tiwi Islands for more mineral sands.
You might ask whether it is important. Yes, it was, because this mine developed on the Tiwis provided jobs for a number of Tiwi people. Not only did it provide jobs for them, it was also the first export of mineral sands from the Tiwi Islands. There are a number of other companies. For example, Xstrata at McArthur River is training young Indigenous people from Borroloola to drive the big trucks, not to do the light work they used to do in the past. About 50 Indigenous people from Borroloola now have jobs in the mine, with quite a good salary, and they do not have to rely on welfare. Bigrlyi is the other mine to be developed in the Territory near Yuendumu. Over the next few years, again with Chinese capital, it will be one of the biggest employers in the area.
It is important we continue to develop the strategy we put in place as a Labor government in the past 10 years. It is important we continue to go to Southeast Asia and China to promote the resources of the Territory, and to attract investment from China. It is important we go to China with local project owners and potential developers to introduce them.
I recall when I first went to China nobody knew where Darwin was. It was only two years ago that the current President of China, Xi Jinping visited Darwin and spent two days here. This put Darwin and the Territory in the forefront in China. If a Chinese leader is visiting a small place like Darwin, that place must be important and they would like to know more about it. It is important to continue that.
I congratulate the minister and the department for putting together a program in May and inviting Chinese companies to the Territory because it is different to us going there telling them what we have in the Territory. It is more important to get them here to show them the Territory and its potential. There is not only mining and resources; there is also tourism. These people may go back and think the Territory is a place to visit. Some of these people have significant influence in China and they know many other people. In China, it is not what you are, what qualifications you have, it is who you know. If people I know in China know many people, the doors open along with opportunities for us to do more business.
It is because of these people we might manage to bring an airline from China. We now have China Southern Airlines which flies from Guangzhou to Perth, passing over Darwin nearly every day. It never stops in Darwin. If Chinese interests believe there may be tourism opportunities in the Northern Territory then that tourism interest can persuade the airlines in China for a stopover once or twice a week in the Northern Territory.
There are opportunities in Southeast Asia. Japan is another country that is very important for the Northern Territory because of the demand by Japanese companies for mineral resources and gas. There is significant development every year in Korea, another Asian tiger, and significant demand for minerals, particularly uranium since about 80% of the electricity produced in Korea comes through nuclear energy. The biggest producer is the state-owned power generation industry.
It is not only the mineral resources. There are other potentials, some of which can be realised today, and some that will take time to develop. It took time to develop the opportunity in China. We had to visit time after time, twice a year, for the past four or five years, to get to know the right people to put the Territory on the map for mineral resources. The same has to happen for anything else, such as agricultural products, fisheries or even mangoes. You cannot access the Chinese market easily. The Chinese can place many obstacles to protect their industry, as we found out.
The other matter is the cost of production. When you compare our cost of production in Australia to the Chinese, ours is significantly higher than in China for nearly everything. That is the reason many of our products will not reach China. For example, most of our products from Australia have to be exported frozen, such as fish, yet the Chinese prefer fresh seafood. It might be a problem. Every day, fresh seafood is exported in aquariums by plane from Queensland to Hong Kong or Taiwan, not frozen. That shows you the preference of the local population and what needs to be considered before we decide we can go to China and sell as much seafood as we can.
Another thing I discovered with agriculture is the reason why we could not sell mangoes to Asia. I spoke to one of the locals who advised me that the mangoes in Australia are fantastic, ‘They are very good, but they are too big’. I asked him, ‘What do you mean too big?’ He said, ‘If I buy a mango to take home and I have to pay $5 that means only one person in the family will eat the mango. If I have two or three people in the family, I would rather pay less, buy smaller mangoes so everybody in the family can have one’. I never thought about that. I thought we had a good quality product; we could go out, flog it, and people would buy it. They did not because of the cost and the preferences of the local people. The same thing applies in many other products.
When I go to China and Singapore, I always go to the supermarket. I always have a look at what products they sell, where these products come from, and how much they cost. I am always surprised when I go to Singapore and find products from America or other countries around the region in the supermarkets, but very few Australian products apart from wine. I am also surprised when I go to Singapore and find French wine selling much cheaper than Australian wine. Our cost of production has to come down; we have to become more efficient. As the minister quite rightly pointed out, in the Territory there are conditions favouring us to produce the right product in the wrong season for other countries. We have to become more efficient and develop agriculture in a more sustainable way, in a much cleverer way, in order to break into these markets.
Another thing that kills us in the Territory is the fact that we do not have airlines we can use to ship containers to export fresh produce in a very short period of time to other countries in Asia. It was a few years ago when Qantas used to fly a 767 out of Darwin. We put flowers, mangoes and other produce on the plane to be exported via Singapore to other countries. Since then, the Qantas 767 flies to Brisbane, and from Brisbane to Asia. That means double handling; double the cost for any product from the Territory, particularly fresh produce.
There are opportunities in the Territory for joint ventures in agriculture and aquaculture. My links in China indicate to me that many Chinese companies are very interested in investing in the Territory, especially in aquaculture. They believe Australian fisheries are the cleanest and the most sustainable in the world and they want to cash in on that product. They are not interested in mass production and mass sale into big markets, they want to attract the niche buyer, the one who is prepared to pay top dollar for good quality product. We should target that particular niche market. We should not try to sell everything to everyone in Asia. Get that niche market, the one that attracts the best return for our product, because that will benefit our people in Australia.
The Chinese are also concerned about food security. Food security enhances the proposal to invest heavily in north Australia. It is the Ord River development which has commenced in Western Australia, but still has to commence in the Territory. Knowing the history, as a previous minister, I tell the current minister it will take time and effort. The advice I give you is to ensure the company that wants to develop the Ord on our side pays for the infrastructure.
It will be impossible for any Territory government to cough up $0.5bn or a $1bn to develop the infrastructure and negotiate with the Indigenous people for the development of the Ord area in the Northern Territory. First, the cost to negotiate with the Indigenous people would be enormous, and quite rightly so. The people who live in Western Australia are the same people who live in the Northern Territory. They have already received a very good compensation package from Western Australia and will demand the same from the Northern Territory. In addition to that, infrastructure like water, power, roads and even a railway would be too expensive for the Northern Territory government to meet.
We had made clear to the company that met the minister and us before the election, that we would only consider developing the Ord with them if they put up the money for the infrastructure. It is not fair for the Territory taxpayer to meet the cost of developing an area which then can be utilised by a private company, overseas or local, to make money for their shareholders.
The Ord is a unique development and can be the future of northern Australia. You may notice it is not proposed to be the food bowl of Southeast Asia. Instead, the Chinese company from Shanghai is proposing to produce sugar - not food products but sugar for their own reasons. Sugar is a commodity that commands high prices now but there is the potential of ethanol in the future.
The Ord is a significant development but, at the same time, we should not forget the areas we have in the Territory around Katherine, Mataranka, even south of Tennant Creek, and in Alice Springs that can be developed. I am glad the minister mentioned the example of Kalano because it is a fantastic development. This is a good example of how the private sector, private supermarkets, can support an Indigenous community to diversify and produce agricultural products. Many people said it would never happen. I was pleasantly surprised when I saw the produce sold in Katherine was produced by the Kalano community. It is the same as the Indigenous Le Rossignol family in Alice Springs producing olive oil which they sell in the local markets and boutique shops in Alice Springs. When I tell my friends in Greece that we produce olives and olive oil in the middle of the desert in Australia they are surprised. There is potential to develop that area and that industry, and the department can assist.
Yes, we had some failures in the past - quite a few - but we had some successes. We have to persevere and ensure local Indigenous people can utilise their land for their and their children’s benefit. There is land out there. Things can grow on land. If Israelis can grow lettuce in the desert think what we can grow on our rich land which has water and a workforce where the land is available.
Madam Speaker, I thank the minister very much for his statement. As I said before, it is great to hear some praise from you about the things we achieved. I encourage you to continue to focus on Asia; it is the future of Australia. As a matter of fact, Australia is in Asia; this is our neighbourhood now and will be for the future. We have to consider who our neighbours are. The Northern Territory is in the centre of the universe. If you look to the south of our Northern Territory we have about 30 million potential clients. Look to the north of the Territory and you have two billion potential clients.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I add my comments to the minister’s statement, specifically the agribusiness side of his statement. In the introduction, the minister raised the issue of horticulture and more intense farming such as Asian vegetables - very large contributors to the NT economy.
One problem we have growing this industry is labour. It is not the only impediment to growth but one we can assist our growers with. As most people are aware, there are large numbers of European backpackers used in this industry. I use them at the Daly and have made many lifetime friends and still keep in contact with many of them all over Europe.
We export much of our produce to Asia and have a large number of Asian horticulturalists, yet we have very few backpackers from Asia. This issue has been raised with me across my electorate which covers a large number of the big mango farms outside the greater Katherine region. I ask members to imagine themselves as someone who uses English as a second language; for instance Vietnamese - this would be easier for our Indigenous members - then think of yourself a German backpacker who also has English as his second language - this double translation can cause many problems. When we employ backpackers for this type of work we first need to introduce them to the farm and the daily work they are required to do. We have programs such as Freshcare and the Woolworths specific programs which require us to keep a detailed track of our fruit from the trees, through our processing and what chemicals are used, so we need to keep a track of batch numbers and so forth. These things need to be explained to the backpackers. Imagine how difficult it is to explain that to someone who speaks English, let alone someone who then has to translate it into their home tongue, when the person who is trying to explain also has English as a second language.
If we have a close look at our backpackers and how we get them into Australia, they all come on work visas. To get these visas they need to have some financial base behind them. While this is possible for most of our European backpackers, it is less achievable in our closer Asian countries, therefore, this is one of the reasons we get fewer of these backpackers in Australia. This is a federal issue in regard to access to visas to come to Australia, but we need to raise the issue and see what can be done to improve access to Asian workers. They are much closer to the Territory anyway. The use of workers from the South Pacific was implemented as a solution to our seasonal worker shortfall more on the east coast. We need to pressure the federal government to consider a similar plan that gives our Asian produce growers access to workers from Asia as a solution to this language problem. This is probably a good thought, especially as we see them as the market for our produce.
The darker complexion of our Asian neighbours has the benefit that they are less prone to mango sap allergies. For every 10 European backpackers I employ, I have to get rid of four of them within a week and replace them because they have a reaction to the mango sap, not the hard work.
I ask our minister to consider this side of the industry when he next discusses this with his federal counterparts to see if some solution could be found that enables our Asian produce growers to get easier access to workers from these countries.
The second issue I raise is the issue of aquaculture. This has great potential here. Today on the radio I heard - and I think AM was being broadcast from a prawn farm in Queensland that grows tiger prawns. One criticism I have heard from sceptics of this type of industry is the large amount of protein input we need to get protein out. Some figures are as high as 10 kg of protein to get 1 kg of prawns. The prawn farm in Queensland made the statement today that they are getting closer to a 1.5 kg protein input to getting a 1 kg protein of prawn meat out. That is something that really needs to be remembered when people start looking at aquaculture in the Territory.
Madam Speaker, the rest of the statement was very good and I cannot add any more to it.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, it is an honour to speak on a statement that deals with agriculture in the Northern Territory. I thank the minister for bringing this statement to the House and congratulate him, because he is in the driving seat of what is the future of real prosperity in the Northern Territory. Decision-making at a party level, a political level, and at an individual level, will be very important in maximising the opportunities in the pastoral, agriculture, and horticulture sectors.
I will fine-tune a little and talk about the opportunities in a regional context, highlighting the opportunities that are coming out of the Barkly region in the Northern Territory, a region that has been very much the beneficiary of the previous government’s investment in exploration for minerals and what is shaping up to be the breadbasket of minerals for the Northern Territory into the future.
The minister talked about Indonesian export cattle and Indonesia as a great market, a great ally, and a great friend of the Northern Territory. I encourage the minister to use his contacts and opportunities to explore what happened to Oceanic Holdings and Kiana Station, because this was the obvious model to develop Indonesian investment into a cattle property that had property to grow cattle as we do on the Barkly. We are not famous for fattening them, but we can certainly grow them. Oceanic Holdings set up Kiana to breed and grow cattle, and then did the logical thing with an investment in the Douglas Daly, which was the finishing or fattening station. Unfortunately, Oceanic Holdings, the Indonesian investment company, walked away from that a couple of years ago and destocked Kiana. Now, Kiana has been picked up by an Australian mob which is restocking the place. They have negotiated a lease to grow their own cattle on the place.
It would be good if the minister can explore why that model went wrong, because it looked good, it was logical, it was the perfect supply chain but it has broken down. I am interested to hear the traps and pitfalls of why that model for raising live export cattle and working them straight into the Indonesian market did not work.
That also goes to the issue of diversity in the beef market and relates to the Australian Agriculture Company’s project of an export abattoir. I can talk first-hand about the Tennant Creek export abattoir and the prosperity that brought to the mining town of Tennant Creek in economically diversifying as well as creating an export product that can go beyond the realm of live export; that is, live steers travelling on boats to closer neighbours.
The Tennant Creek abattoir was a good story in the early 1980s. It related to the era of the Brucellosis and Tuberculosis Eradication Campaign. There was much destocking happening within the Northern Territory. There was a lot of product and, therefore, there was much diversity in the beef - from bulls through to bullocks, steers, and Cracker cows. A market like America was processing beef into the fast food chain, and everything was able to be minced. That was a good outcome for a destocking initiative within the Territory and for cleaning up the industry. It provided diversity for places to get rid of the ‘rogue’ animals and concentrate on breeding programs. Then came the more closely managed cattle station behind wire and the highly sophisticated places we see across the Barkly today.
That is Australian Agriculture’s story. I believe the minister supports AACo’s project, as the previous government also supported this project. It has great benefits of an export abattoir that can send frozen product beyond the boundaries of live export and get into the ultimate market for selling protein in the future, which is China. Its emerging middle class and need for protein as a nutritional supplement is phenomenal. I am sure the minister will progress those ideas.
The Ord River story is a big story for agriculture. There are some very sensitive native title issues to be negotiated in relation to the total success of the Ord Stage 3 on the Northern Territory side of the border. The new Country Liberal Party government will have to take stock of their track record around the solution to land rights and native title issues in the past. There are many new members on board and they will have a new take on how to achieve this. The advice I always give is negotiate, not litigate. Let us hope the new government can look into that area.
The previous Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries and Resources has given them some good tips on those challenges around infrastructure, delivery, and broadacre farming as opposed to food production. There is great potential but it has to be managed very carefully.
I will trim it back to what are real opportunities at the moment. I draw the minister’s attention to the Ti Tree area of the Northern Territory around to Singleton Station, just south of Tennant Creek, which not only has opportunities for agriculture with access to good soil, but also has the aquifer for water sources. Those areas around McLaren Creek Station, Singleton, and the Ti Tree area have exceptional underground reserves of very good water. It is shallow, easy to get, high quality, and there is a lot of it. It is an area that has been looked at for a long time as potential for agricultural projects. This is not the grand scale of the Ord, but a more intensive area that would support good regional development initiatives.
We have an example in the Ali Curung watermelon farm. The Ali Curung watermelon farm is a great example of good native title negotiations. It is an example of good planning and support from the previous government. What was negotiated was, essentially, approximately 400 ha of very viable land with great water supplies that produces a crop of watermelons and pumpkins. The next plan, Stage 2 of the farm, is pomegranates. These products are quite easy to grow. They can achieve two crops of watermelons and pumpkins a year. They are close to infrastructure for transport and present really good returns that can be scaled up.
That will grow not only the agriculture sector in the regional areas, but will also offer jobs. The member for Daly talked about the issues around workers and agriculture, which is very true. He talked about his solution of skilled migration visas and backpackers. The Ali Curung watermelon farm is a very good example, because it is about 5 km away from a community of around 400 people …
Mr Wood: And only one works.
Mr McCARTHY: Yes, there are times when there are no workers from the community at the watermelon farm.
I have my ideas about that. I do not have time to share those in deconstructing colonial policy and the era of the missions and welfare settlements; that is for another time. I continue the dialogue with the residents of Ali Curung and the wider Barkly and tell them they should be looking at this opportunity not because they will learn to grow watermelons, chip weeds or grow cabbages, but because they can get real experience in industry, which means operating machines like forklifts, trucks, tractors, and harvesting equipment. They can learn to work in real industry and make contact with an exceptional team that runs that watermelon farm, and the exceptional philanthropist who established it. From there they can go to other areas of Australia and get connected to experience real prosperity.
There is a real tension about having the opportunity and the workforce. Now it is up to us to fuse those two elements to get really good returns. The member for Namatjira talked about this. Now she is in the saddle we hope there will be more dialogue, opportunities, and training to employment that can focus on these really good regional initiatives, with the minister for Resources looking at those further opportunities. There are many people who want to expand those agricultural opportunities in Central Australia.
There is an exciting project that was brokered and delivered by the previous Labor government, and the new minister has carriage of it. A new government can crow about all their initiatives because they have the numbers. The project is related to the Ali Curung watermelon farm. A 16-bed prisoner work camp has been negotiated there. I worked hard on it. It came off and I received many nice phone calls to congratulate the previous government on the project.
What it represents is an extension of the Barkly work camp. It was always designed for prisoners to be able to live onsite and experience real employment and training to deliver those outcomes where they will be in a working context which supports what I call a world view. They will see the bigger picture, experience a hard day’s work, be able to sit around and talk to other people and get new ideas, be motivated and, essentially, develop their self-esteem. That will be a whole new take on Corrections. It is not exactly locking people up, but making opportunities in alternative sentencing. It will be run in conjunction with the Barkly work camp. It is a great model and I congratulate the new Minister for Correctional Services. He will enjoy that opportunity and see the real fruits of his labour.
The other area we have to talk about is minerals in the Barkly, the breadbasket of minerals. When you talk about gold, copper, manganese, iron ore, cobalt and bismuth we are talking about real opportunities in future mines. I ask the minister to keep his foot on the pedal with the exploration programs and where government can support exploration. The Minerals Council has been calling for that same support recently and they are giving advice to keep the foot on the pedal because the exploration programs are going on all over the Barkly.
We are now starting to see the next stage with mining. There is the Western Desert Resources project. I have just come through the Gulf Country where I spent a couple of weeks out bush. There is buzz around Borroloola at the moment because the mine haul road, that 160 km of road, has started from both ends and the contractors are in Borroloola spending money and locals are getting jobs. I will put in a big plug for Joseph Kidd who I bumped into. He is an ex-student of mine from Kargaru School in 1980. I watched that young fellow grow up through the ranks and he is now on the contract team building that road, supervising and mentoring new staff. Jungali, it is great to catch up with you again and see your success. I wish you all the best because you are a fantastic role model.
I encourage the minister to not just think about exploration and new mining projects, but the rehabilitation of old tailings. There are many very interested companies around the Barkly which were talking to the previous government. It relates to both east and west of Tennant Creek. That big mining era of the past left significant tailings which can be treated onsite. They can be carved up and sold off individually, or they have markets that will take them in their raw state. Some companies are able to truck those tailings out and sell them overseas where they will be smelted and divided up according to their mineral wealth. These are also great ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! As riveted as I am with this speech, I suggest the next five minutes occur at a later date. As it is now 5.30 pm, it is time for General Business Day.
Mr McCARTHY: What do you think, Mr Deputy Speaker, five minutes to go or we get straight into ...
Mr Deputy SPEAKER: Member for Barkly, being 5.30 pm, in accordance with Standing Order 93, debate is suspended and General Business will now have precedence over Government Business until 9 pm.
Debate suspended.
MOTION
Motor Vehicle Registry Charges – Revocation
Motor Vehicle Registry Charges – Revocation
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the government scraps the $20 charge that will be required to be paid at MVR offices by Territorians who do not wish to, or cannot, pay the renewal of their registration or licence fees via the Internet or over the telephone.
The minister made a statement today which I was pleased to hear. I thank you, minister, for that statement. He mentioned the member for Drysdale doing a fantastic job. I did not quite get that type of praise; I was called a dog whistler. I am unsure what the difference between the two of us is but, obviously, I am a dog whistler. We achieved the same thing ...
Ms Finocchiaro: I take offence to that.
Mr WOOD: I was not saying you were, I was having a go at him.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! In the interest of correcting the record and rubbing the back of the member for Nelson, I would like to now refer to him as a chicken whistler.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. Go on, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: That is okay. I am not sure whether that is praise or just making it worse.
All jokes aside, I thank the minister for his change of heart in relation to this. It was an ill-conceived idea. I understand where it came from. The minister could argue this is how we needed to encourage people to get online. Great idea! Your answer in parliament today was a fairly good indication that you have increased the number of people who use MVR online, and that is terrific. I have no problem with that at all. I had problems with using that as the method to get people online, when you could have just encouraged people.
I have some other concerns. One of the concerns was you can ring on the phone. A bloke rang me and said, ’Yes, I got on the phone and sat there for 20 minutes’. I should have said to him, ‘You could have sat and read War and Peace’, because that is a famous novel the minister seems to promote fairly regularly in his speeches. You could have moved the queue from the MVR office to someone’s workplace. He just said, ‘I just about hung up because you sit on the line and, yes, your call will be answered in 10 minutes, you are No 307 on the list, and we will get to you soon’. If you are not careful you can replace a queue with a queue.
The other thing I am interested in, minister, is you said there are a couple of iPads at the MVR offices. Do you get a queue there because they are still coming to the office? If there is no queue - as you indicated to me just then - at the iPads, why is there not a queue if you are served by two public servants? You still have to stand there and put your details into an iPad, so there is time taken to do that. If there is no queue, no bank-up of people waiting to use those two iPads, why can they not just go to the front counter? Put a couple more staff on, that is all I am saying.
I was trying to work the logic out, because much of this argument was about reducing queues, getting people out of MVR offices to do their work online. Some of what you were saying seemed to me to be removing the queue from here to there - no queues of people backing up in front of the counters, but queues on the phone and in front of the iPads. That is where I had some concern that it sounded good but, in actual fact, it still caused problems.
The whole approach you have towards streamlining MVR is very good. I came to this motion originally - before you made the announcement today - to give you my two bob’s worth, but I will not do that because I will give credit where it is due. I understand we can play politics too. I believe you have done the right thing and what you are trying to do is good for the people of the Northern Territory.
However, we also have to remember - and this is not just about you - there are people who are not IT savvy, who do not want to use their credit card over the phone, who want the right to go to an MVR office or any other government office and be served. It is called customer service. When we pay our registration fees, we pay an administration fee of $9, I think it is, so we can be served by those people because we pay their wages. That was an important principle that was being missed.
People have the right to go to the MVR office, because it is not always about going to the Post Office or somewhere else. In Palmerston, you might be on your way to Maccas, ‘While I am going past Maccas I will go and pay my licence. Oh no, that is a silly idea, you will cop $20, that could have been two Big Macs with regular chips and a diet coke’. That would have been a bit of a waste ...
Mr Giles interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Shush, do not tell my missus.
The mistake was that you did not understand that there are some people in our society who simply do not want to use that method of payment. You have to govern for all people. It is similar to when Telstra decided to charge people for paying their bill at Australia Post. It used to have ‘Pay at Australia Post’ at the bottom of their bill. A couple of years ago, Telstra decided to charge $2. There was a big hue and cry and the fee was scrapped because the customer was told to pay the bill at Australian Post but was then whacked with a $2 fee. We are dealing with people who go to a shop that is designed to take money for licences and registration, but we penalise them when they get customer service by charging $20.
My argument is the government is introducing a fee which has not been thought through properly. It has not taken into account all people; it is only taking into account some people: the ones who are smart and can use their computer. They can do it on their smartphone; they do not mind using their credit card over the phone. There are probably plenty of those people. I order things over the Internet or over the phone, but my wife would not.
You also have the issue of what happens in the bush. If I live on an outstation where there is no Internet service or telephone, and I turn up at the police station to register my car or renew my registration, what is the issue regarding paying this $20 fee? Would people have to pay that $20 if they turned up at the local police station?
Mr Giles: I already answered that.
Mr WOOD: It was not clear then. That is why I have asked for clarification. I wanted to ensure those people were not penalised as well.
I brought the motion forward, regardless of all the to-ing and fro-ing, because I believed it was an unfair impost on people. I know the government wants to raise money. This would not have raised much money; you would still have had to spend money on handling the money. I do not know what you would have made out of it in the end. I hope you understand that I felt this fee was not fair.
Before Christmas, I raised this issue and got into a fair bit of strife. I went to a Christmas party for the old timers. I was doing my Father Christmas stint, as I do occasionally at that time of year, and people there told me that some of them do not operate computers, smartphones or pay over the phone. I went to the Fibre Craft Guild at Humpty Doo. Every Wednesday, a group of people, probably my age and older, love to sit down and do a bit of needle work, have a nice cup of tea, some scones, jam and cream, and enjoy one another’s company. I sat down with them and had a chat. They told me that some can use computers and some cannot. That is where the problem with this has come from. The government did not have its feet on the ground or was not in touch with the people it needed to be in touch with. All I did was reflect what those people’s concerns were.
Before Christmas, I was rubbished by the Treasurer - and then a bit more - but I was being genuine about the concerns of a group of people. It is my responsibility to raise their concerns in this parliament. I have done that and would have done more today if the government had not changed its mind. I hope the minister takes that criticism in good faith because I want to at least balance it with the reality of the situation on the day the minister changed his mind.
He has done well to turn things around at the MVR. I used to hate the queues. Occasionally, I went to the office in Goyder Road and there were all these new counters where people will serve you, but even though they had plenty of them, there were not many people in them. They looked impressive. There was a move to try to speed up service, but there were times when that just did not happen
I thank the minister for looking at that issue. Obviously, many working people get very frustrated because they go to the MVR at lunchtime trying to fix up their registration or licence. If what the government has introduced can enable those people to be served much quicker, that is good. Once again, minister, there was a genuine concern from people, and I thank you for at least accepting that was the issue.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Drysdale for also getting behind this. I did not intend any insult at all, by the way, member for Drysdale; that was just taking the mickey out of the minister. I thank you for your support and I thank the minister for changing his mind.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will talk through a couple of issues that are really confusing for me. First of all, the minister being rolled in Cabinet to implement what was a politically very unpopular decision to raise - I will use the same analogy – chicken feed. The irony is this initiative to try to sting everybody $20 to queue up backfired because in trying to be popular and reduce the queues at the Motor Vehicle Registry, which is a real issue, this minister, the Chief Minister, and the Country Liberal Party, became very unpopular.
How the hell did that ever get through Cabinet? I struggle to understand what is happening in the Country Liberal Party Cabinet when a minister of the calibre of the member for Braitling, the possible next Chief Minister - I can see the odds have shortened considerably on the leader board today - a minister with real potential to be the Chief Minister in the Northern Territory was rolled in Cabinet for $20. It beggars belief, but it is good to see he achieved it and the Chief Minister today said the decision was overturned. It was quite ridiculous. They admit that. It was a very unpopular thing to do politically and it was scrapped. People in the Northern Territory will applaud that backflip. It is important to have the humility to say, ‘We got it wrong’. Do not be ever frightened to show humility, Country Liberals, because sometimes that can win you a couple of votes in the popularity stakes as well.
I was privileged to be the Minister for Transport in the previous government, which worked tirelessly on the same issues. I remember doing the media conference where we introduced the quick queue. Recently, I had the opportunity of using that with my younger son who got his learner’s licence. I decided to hit an urban motor registry at a peak time and go through the queue system to see how we went. I was very impressed watching the staff of the Motor Vehicle Registry processing an enormous number of customers. Everything was moving; everything was travelling through smoothly. There was no doubt about waiting times and that the public does not like to wait, but it was good to see that working.
This minister has taken it upon himself to continue those improvements, and that is good. There was much legwork already done by the previous government. Many ideas were presented to the new minister and he is now moving on it. However, he was sucked in big time with the $20 sting which was so badly advised. I am wondering where it came from. My only thoughts are that it must be from that infamous Renewal Management Board digging in deep to Territorians’ pockets, not only smashing them with major price hikes, but taking their last $20 to queue at MVR. However, it has been overturned. Let us dwell on the positives.
The minister would be faced with the same challenges the previous government had which were - the way you address this is various; you look at more staff and more offices. The minster told us today in Question Time about the remote MVR offices coming online, an initiative of the previous government. This minister - the wanna-be Chief Minister, the possible next Chief Minister - is saying we spoke about it and he will deliver it. The public sector will testify to the fact that these things do not happen overnight. There has been an enormous amount of work to deliver the first Motor Vehicle Registry offices into the remote areas. Good luck to the new minister because that is what we need out there. It may be you who delivers it; we will wait to see. We will give you any support you need on that front.
When it comes down to the logic of more staff and more offices, that is when costs start to escalate. The Renewal Management Board has set the tone in the CLP Cabinet that there will be no more of that. It is about taking, not giving. The new minister had to look at alternatives and took some really bad advice, was rolled in Cabinet, rolled out a $20 sting, and, thank heavens, the Chief Minster backflipped on it.
The other issue is we have to really work with the public. There are opportunities to try alternatives. I remember one of the big challenges was people going to the Motor Vehicle Registry in their lunch hour. That was the time they had off work and when the queues would really hit. That is when the criticisms started, the letters were sent to the paper, and the government became very unpopular.
Changing hours was a good initiative. The Saturday morning opening hours were discussed by the previous government. A general election got in the way of many government initiatives from the previous regime. The change to hours is good. I applaud the minister for Saturday morning openings and am sure those services will be increased in regard to the range of services offered. Once again, it will cost; it comes down to staff and infrastructure cost. As the member for Nelson said, that is what governments do; it is about customer service.
The other angle around the $20 the minister may be interested in, if he speaks to the Minister for Correctional Services, is the disproportionate rate of Indigenous Territorians who are imprisoned. You will see a correlation between 82% Indigenous prisoners represented in our system in the Northern Territory and this low-level recidivist nature of offending which often relates to offences under the Traffic Act. The minister was trying to address an issue and took very bad advice. He did not realise - I hope he explores this a little more – that whacking that fee on, or that punitive approach, has a psychological effect on people in the regional and remote areas. It might seal that decision, ‘Do not worry, I will drive unregistered or unlicensed. I will not go to the counter. I will not process what I need to process to operate in society. I do not have a credit card. I do not have access to the Internet so I will take the risk’. When they are picked up a number of times and that recidivist nature of offending catches up with them, they end up in prison. It is a real link and I encourage the Minister for Transport to consider that link next time the Renewal Management Board comes in with a punitive policy which has a compounding effect: that chain reaction that goes right down the line and can even start to impact on the prison population of the Northern Territory.
It is good to see that was overturned. It is also good to see the minister is working on MVR offices in remote areas, as the previous government was. It is good to see the minister is …
Mr Giles: You just lie!
Mr McCARTHY: Yes, whatever! You can record that on Hansard. I will pick up on that interjection because I was privileged to be the minister for Transport and what is …
Mr Giles: You did nothing. I have been through our old stuff.
Mr McCARTHY: He is directly having a slight at the public servants I worked with. The difference between this guy and me is it starts with the semantics of ‘my department, my work’. It is all about ‘me’. To be the Chief Minister, that is the line you will have to run. The people over there are looking for an alternative, so keep your hand up and that ego well and truly fuelled. Let me tell you that you can say whatever you like because the whole Transport Division of the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment knows the truth. Argue all you like, throw your insults across the Chamber.
I work with Territorians and I always will. I know the truth, and this political banter can go on as much as it likes because, once I walk out of this House, I go back into that sense of reality. When I look people in the eye, I do not have to get accolades or that ego massage. I get the quiet reaction, ‘We know the truth’.
I digress, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have been led down the garden path by a minister who is sensitive about this issue, who was done over in Cabinet, who was sold a pup out of the same litter the member for Fong Lim got his pup from in trying to deliver alcohol policy. He is, obviously, a little embarrassed, so I will read his behaviour in this House accordingly.
As the member for Nelson said, give credit where credit is due. There is work going on; it is continuing to go on with the new government. We support that. I ask the minister to look, in a little more detail, into ramifications of decision-making, particularly in the area of motor vehicle operations, the Traffic Act, the relationship it has to the disproportionate number of Indigenous Territorians who are imprisoned, and get a better understanding of what can deliver real results to Territorians, or very negative results.
That this has been overturned today is a good result. This is a story Territorians can talk about; they can acknowledge there was some humility and the Chief Minister did the backflip. They can ask, ‘What is next?’ What the Chief Minister is missing, with this real highbrow ego approach from the Country Liberal Party, is it is all about lecturing, not listening.
The Wanguri by-election was the temperature test. Before that by-election I was listening to and watching the posturing of the CLP. They talked about a marginal result. We will take that marginal result in Sanderson. We will be quite happy with that marginal result in Sanderson. We will take that marginal result in the seat of Drysdale. We would be quite happy with that marginal result the Labor candidate achieved in Wanguri. It sends a very clear message.
Mr Deputy Speaker, instead of lecturing, listening to Territorians is the way to go. Territorians will be saying, ‘Thank you, Minister for Transport, for doing the backflip. Thank you, Chief Minister, for doing the backflip on the $20 sting. How about looking at other measured and more managed increments in the price hikes you are hell-bent on imposing on hard-working Territory families?’ There is a good lesson to be learnt today that the Leader of the Opposition outlined in this House. It is up to you because you are driving the show and delivering for Territorians. The question is, what exactly are you delivering?
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister who is the first minister who has listened and responded since the by-election. This is a sound decision. He has contrasted himself brilliantly with the head-in-the-sand approach from the Chief Minister. This is a sensible decision. In his job you have to listen and sometimes change your direction and what you are doing. This is good from the minister; he has clearly advanced himself ahead of others in the team in the ability to listen to what was a resounding result on Saturday and respond with a clear-cut decision. He did not prevaricate around it. There were no meetings and no ‘possibles’, ‘I might do this, I might do that’. He has made a clear decision to change how to handle this. It was a smart thing to do. It is what you are meant to do as a politician, as a parliamentarian. He has listened and acted.
Other colleagues in his team should follow his lead and do something similar. You need to listen, particularly when people speak so clearly and loudly as happened on Saturday.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this is an excellent decision from the minister. Obviously, he did not make it alone; he has some clear sway in his party room to be able to get to this position. It is a good thing to see a minister listen and respond. Some might see it as a shameless attempt to jump some others who might be vying for honours in the government. I take it completely at face value as a smart, sensible response to a clear message from people who thought the direction the CLP was travelling in on this issue was the wrong one. He has done the right thing in changing his position on it. I thank him for doing that.
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, I speak on this today as obviously - as the minister has said and the member for Nelson has outlined - I was an advocate for reconsidering this charge. I thank the minister and my Cabinet colleagues for doing so.
It is very important to remember that decisions like this one made by our government have contributed to a significant change in customer behaviour for the benefit of all Territorians. It forms part of the reason the decision not to implement the charge has come about.
We took this issue of long wait times at the MVR to the last election. This policy was one of many put in place to address the concern of Territorians. As the minister will no doubt delve into, he took immediate steps. Within three weeks of our election we opened the Goyder Road MVR on Saturday mornings, and have seen a staggering 4031 transactions go through the MVR since opening. That is an average of 191 transactions every Saturday morning, which is astonishing. It clearly highlights the demand for MVR services.
The Minister for Transport has also significantly increased the online capacity so Territorians have the choice of not going into an MVR office, which was causing many problems in the first place. Now there are more options for registration, licence renewal, and there are the smartphone and tablet opportunities as well. These types of technologies are not for everyone, but our dedication to revitalising and enhancing online services has saved thousands of Territorians the trouble of going to an MVR office. That is really the point; it is about giving greater options to Territorians. One in five registrations are now completed online.
We have also improved our BPay. The old MVR website was very clunky and difficult to get around. We have revitalised that. We also have Australia Post options so when people who do not like online or phone services are at the Post Office they can make their payments there.
At the end of the day, the $20 fee that would have come into place in July this year saw a change in behaviour. We had a 74% increase in motor vehicle registrations and 62% increase in licence renewals online. We have also promoted the fact that you do not need to go to the MVR test shed to get your vehicle inspection. As a result of that we have seen an increase from 19 private vehicle inspections a month to 1129, which is astonishing.
The $20 over-the-counter fee was a big issue in my electorate, but it was the catalyst for a good change to MVR service delivery used by consumers. I welcome today’s announcement not to implement the fee that would have come into effect in July. I have been working very closely with the Minister for Transport, his office, and my Cabinet colleagues, to reconsider the implementation.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank my Cabinet colleagues for hearing the concerns of Palmerston residents, and I am proud to have brought this issue to the forefront of government on behalf of my constituents.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I compliment the minister responsible for this fee for having listened to arguments. What I hear from the opposition in this House is they want the government to listen. They call for that repeatedly, and say, ‘You should listen to the people and you should do this’. They are full of great advice. Sadly, of course, we have been left with almost a tragic debt level by the previous government.
I congratulate the minister for listening to the people and doing this. We heard from the other side, ‘The government is doing backflips’. I do not know whether this a backflip. I have heard people say, including the member for Barkly, who is a former teacher - I am sure he would have used words like this or similar at some stage in his teaching career when teaching people, giving them knowledge – what I was taught many years ago. I have also said when you have a certain amount of knowledge you base your decisions on the knowledge you have at the time. When you get new information and new knowledge, then you can make a different decision.
We came into government, opened up the books, and what did we find? An unmitigated disaster in relation to debt levels and projected debt levels. These are not our figures; these are the projected figures of the Labor government. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out we are going on this unsustainable debt path that will almost ruin the Northern Territory. Someone has to recover the situation the previous government left us in. Sadly, we were placed in a situation where some tough decisions had to be made.
If you get more information and think, ‘Okay, I can do this or we can do that’, and look at it and make a decision to change, then that is fine. I do not have a problem with that, because that is making a decision based on some different information. If you have the capacity to change after receiving the information, then you can change your mind. Some people do not have the capacity to change, but we have demonstrated we have that capacity.
The previous Henderson Labor government has left us in a very poor position. We have had to make some very difficult decisions. I listened to the former government lecturing us on economics, yet I wonder what their qualifications were when they were making these decisions. I wonder what information they had when they were in Cabinet making decisions. Did they listen to the advice given to them by the Power and Water people about putting prices up? Did they calculate the full prices of power and water? No, we know that. There is correspondence suggesting the government should have done a whole range of things, yet they were not done. One wonders why they did not do it. It is quite obvious; it would have been extremely unpopular. Whoever won the 2012 general election in the Northern Territory would be required to increase power prices; that is a fact. You cannot keep producing power and selling it for less than the cost of production. That is an unsustainable business case.
I look at the graphs and the financial situation of the Territory, and I see we have to get spending down to what we earn. I have had times in my life where I have been right on the edge, where I could pick the coins out of my pocket and count how much I had between then and next pay day. When you are raising kids, especially if you do it on your own - and there are so many people who are doing it tough - eventually, one has to try to cope.
Pensioners are doing it tough. There are people in my electorate who have said they are doing it tough. There are pensioners in my electorate who are saying they will have to restructure what they do and how they do it. However, the charges for power supply will go up. I do not know what the opposition’s response is to a proposal to getting the power prices up to what it costs to produce power. I hope someone on that side might say either I am wrong or I need to do more sums. I am sure someone over there will say, ‘You do not know what you are talking about’. I ask the opposition what it would have done had it won the 2012 election. Would it have left power prices where they were? Would it have continued to run Power and Water into a debt situation where it became totally unsustainable and the taxpayer might have to bail it for hundreds of millions of dollars? What would it have done? I heard the debate from the other side of this Chamber where they accused us of all types of things. They say this is terrible, but what would they have done? I have not heard them say, ‘We were leaving the power …
Mr Giles: They do not make decisions, they pay by credit card.
Mr STYLES: That is true; put it on the credit card and borrow some more money.
On their own projections, by 2016, the debt would be in excess of $5bn - a totally unsustainable situation. What would they have done about it? Just forget about it? Say to people, ‘We will keep selling power for less than it costs to produce’. You do not have to be a graduate from a business school to understand if you are selling a product well below what it is costing to produce it, at some stage someone will have to pay. If it is not the consumer, it is someone else. Who is that person ...
Mr Giles: Children.
Mr STYLES: Yes, our kids. I have children and grandchildren who live here and we are not going anywhere. This is our home and we will be here forever. I cannot pack up and say, ‘Let us leave the Territory if I have messed it up. We will pack up and go somewhere else’. I have to stay here.
When we came into government, in the discussions we had on this side of the House in our party room I was appalled at some of the things the previous government had done and the legacy it left us and my kids. The federal Treasurer, Mr Swan, about 18 months ago, said he would produce a $1bn deficit, ‘It is great and that is what we will do from now on, have deficits’.
Someone handed me a piece of paper with a figure which said it will take, at that rate, 142 years to pay off the debt they racked up in less than five years. At $1bn a year deficit they had a bit of an issue. How will we pay it off? Your great-great-great-grandchildren will still be paying off the debt they have run this country into. It is unsustainable. Debt is a millstone around anybody’s neck. It is the debt of our people in the Territory.
One of the main concerns I heard when I was doorknocking in Wanguri recently - and also doorknocking in my electorate and talking to my constituents at shopping centres every Saturday morning when I hear some of their issues - was the cost in relation to power and rent. One of these guys said, ‘The cost of my rent has gone up in the last 12 months by $125 a week, and it is about to go up again’. I asked, ‘What do you think? Why do you think that is occurring?’ We talked about land release and lack of land.
He is trying to buy a house. He cannot get into the housing market because he cannot go into an auction for land. There is a basic rule in the free market; if you have 100 people looking for a block of land and there are only 50 blocks of land available, only 50 people will get a block of land. It means you have an auction on every block of land. People keep upping the price, somebody wants to gazump somebody else, and they keep going. They keep pushing the price up. The lack of land release by the previous government drove the cost of a block of land up.
I heard this morning in this House that the price of a block of land in Bellamack went up by $1000 a week. Some of the people who are trying to buy those houses hardly earn $1000 a week ...
Mr Giles: They put it on the credit card like Labor.
Mr STYLES: That is true. I was having a conversation with this guy at one of my shopping centres, and he was saying, ‘I am struggling. I cannot buy a house and the repayments I might be making on a reasonably priced house cost more than rent’. We have this ridiculous situation where you have 100 people looking for a block, and only 50 blocks of land, because you failed to release sufficient land.
You then have those 50 people going into the housing market. What do we see here? We see 50 people competing for 10 homes. You see people living with families in two little rooms under an elevated home because they cannot afford the rent. The rents have gone through the roof.
To go back to the original part of the conversation I had with this gentleman, he said, ‘Power will go up to X number of dollars per week. Why are people not screaming about the increase in the cost of housing and rent because of the previous government’s failure to release land?’ Look at the drivers here. Why do people not have disposable income in their pockets?
I will give you another classic example of one of the businesses in my electorate. I have used this example before, but maybe those on the other side were not listening. It has to do with the humble bottle of tomato sauce. I spoke to the proprietor of this particular business. Some time ago when the ...
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I know we are allowed a fair amount of latitude, but this speech has gone for a considerable time and the motion which has been put forward has not been mentioned very much at all, except at the beginning. I understand where the member is coming from. I am not complaining about his argument, but from the point of view of relevance, we must stick reasonably close to the motion as presented today.
Mr GILES: Speaking to the point of relevance, Madam Speaker! The member for Sanderson is very well articulating cost of living pressures on people’s lives, particularly about waiting times in queues in MVR …
Mr Wood: $20 fees.
Mr GILES: That is exactly what we are talking about. I am very interested in hearing the end of his argument and seeing how he ties it all together.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Braitling. Member for Sanderson, I understand you are developing an argument, but please continue.
Mr STYLES: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I thank the member for Braitling for that point of order. Clearly, I am explaining that this government is very concerned about the legacy left to us. It is being able to look at where we can do things slightly better when we get new information and remove these charges we put in place. When you put those charges in place - I would like to quote other things that have happened in this House today - you look at the benefits of listening to what people say and, when it is in your capacity to change, then you make those changes. That is what responsible governments do. It is about listening to the people. The other side bangs on about all sorts of things and says we do not listen to people. This is a clear indication we do.
With the issue of power and water prices and other charges, sometimes it is not within the government’s capacity to keep saying, ‘We will sell power for less than it costs to produce’. You cannot do that. I ask that someone from the opposition stand up and say you can. It is a challenge; stand up and say you can continue to do these things. Governments will listen but they still have to act responsibly and keep the books in some order so we do not go broke.
Some people do not quite understand exactly how all this works. Generally, if you have a 20% overspend in your budget, it is not sustainable. If you talk to any business, you will find that businesses cannot sustain a 20% overspend. Governments cannot sustain a 20% overspend. If you keep doing that for two years, that is 40% of your budget that you have to pay back, plus some interest. That is about half. It is not rocket science. On the government’s side, we have been responsible where we have listened to people and made some changes that will suit many people.
The spin-off from this has been a 5000% - feel free to interject, minister ...
Mr Giles: 5800%.
Mr STYLES: A 5800% increase in the use of online registration …
Mr Giles: No, no. I will cover that.
Mr STYLES: The minister will cover that in his summing up. I listened and was very impressed because it has people doing what we all want to do; that is, get people online to do business. I go online to do it. It is fabulous; I do not have to go to the Motor Vehicle Registry office. Other people, as they come online, will find their time is far better spent doing these things online, going to the local library, doing a whole range of things …
Mr Giles: Buying tomato sauce?
Mr STYLES: Tomato sauce? We will go back to tomato sauce. Things are tough out there. People on the other side of the House allowed the push of prices through the roof because of their lack of land release. These are Territory families, young people trying to get a start in life.
I heard debate in this House today talking about young people getting into the market. I had a path beaten to my door by young people coming to talk to me about their inability to get a deposit together and then be able to sustain the repayments on such high prices. That is a massive hike of, in some cases, $150 per week over 12 months just on rentals. I do not know how the opposition tries to bag the government for doing some of the things we have to. We on this side do not have a choice; we have to fix the problem we inherited.
Madam Speaker, I commend the minister for listening to the people of the Northern Territory, to his Cabinet and party colleagues, and saying, ‘Perhaps we can do this a bit better’. Obviously, there have been some ways to point that out and it is within our capacity to do that. I commend the minister on withdrawing that fee.
Mr GILES (Transport): Madam Speaker, what an opportunity to say a few words. I am not sure who to thank first, the member for Sanderson or the member for Drysdale. They have been like two little rabbits gnawing on my ears about this fee, which would not start for four-and-a-half months …
Mr Wood: Now he is calling me a rabbit.
Mr GILES: Chicken whistler - a fee which would not start for four-and-a-half months, member for Nelson.
I will not go down the same avenue of anecdotes about tomato sauce in this motion, but I start by thanking the member for Nelson for bringing this motion on to the floor. I thank my colleague, the member for Drysdale who, in all seriousness, since she has come into this Chamber in her position as the member for Drysdale, has been working very tenaciously in her electorate on a range of issues, the least of which was MVR services. Her efforts have, in part, led to our position today.
Member for Sanderson, you have also been advocating very well for the people of the northern suburbs. It is a pity there are not any other members in the northern suburbs who advocate as strongly as you do, Peter. Many in the northern suburbs, across all electorates, come to you and you present those issues and concerns to our wing, and I thank you.
The motion will not be accepted by the government, member for Nelson, because it is now irrelevant as we do not have a $20 fee. We never had one, it was only intended to start in four-and-a-half months down the track. We will not be accepting the motion because, as announced today by the Chief Minister and me in Question Time, we have heard loud and clear the concerns of the community in regard to opposition to the proposed $20 fee. In light of those concerns, as well as the change in customer behaviour in the taking up of online payment options, the fee has been scrapped. While the fee was not proposed to commence until 1 July 2013, there was a massive change in customer behaviour with more and more Territorians now realising the benefits of doing their business online.
It was no secret the MVR waiting times was a key issue for Territorians at the last Territory election. When I was considering the reasons why the queues got this way and what the policy response could be to improve the situation, I was reminded the queues were a direct outcome of the previous Labor government’s failure to plan for and resource the MVR to cope with growth.
I will now step back and reflect upon some of the comments made by the member for Barkly. What he said are just flat-out lies. To say he was working on these things is an absolute joke. There were an average of 19 inspection reports per month from private inspectors faxed or e-mailed to the MVR before this announcement when I started talking up about there being no need to go to the MVR to get the inspections done; they could be done in the private sector. What did we have in January? Approximately 1200. From 19 to 1200 is an increase of 5800%. I have heard some big numbers in percentage increases, but a 5800% increase – and he tells me he was working on it. Rubbish, lies! He said he was working on WiFi for buses. They are all lies. Everything the member for Barkly said was a lie.
I appreciate what the member for Fannie Bay said. He added value to the argument and I appreciate his comments wholeheartedly. I encourage the new members for Nightcliff, Wanguri - and is the member for Johnston here? I have not heard him. Oh, there he is. Member for Johnston, I have not heard you say much, but I encourage you to take a leaf out of the member for Fannie Bay’s book who was a bit more outspoken last term and is now speaking up more and more. It is unfortunate in the last four years, though, he was a little like the member for Nhulunbuy - the ever-growing cranky member for Nhulunbuy who, in the last four years never mentioned gas to Gove. Not once! The member for Fannie Bay never spoke about the queues outside MVR in this Chamber and how much heartache it caused the people in his electorate. He must be happy now those queues are not going past all the houses in his electorate. I am sure he would be very happy; he has that wry smile on his face. He is probably thinking, ‘If only I had done more I might have been able to convince the former Transport minister to do something about MVR’.
The hard-working people at MVR processed 855 000 transactions, a 30% increase over the last few years. What happened? Nothing. That is why, since the change of government, we have a new direction we have taken trying to get people to go online and conduct their business differently, and to do inspections outside the MVR. That is why we have seen such changes since the announcement: a 74% increase in registrations and a 62% increase in licence renewals done online.
Our Saturday morning trading launched straight after the election has seen 4031 transactions averaging 191 each Saturday morning; 636 of those were vehicle inspections, averaging 30 inspections. The transactions included 348 vehicle transfers, which is 9% of transactions; 1472 licence transactions, which was 36% of transactions; 1706 registration transactions, or 42% of transactions. It is important to point out 77% of the Saturday morning transactions may have been able to be done online.
We are continuing to improve our services. We saw recently the launch of the two iPads at MVR. The member for Nelson asked if you had to line up for that. It is not heavily used; use it straightaway. We were launching it and a lady asked what is was all about. I said, ‘You can do your MVR registration online’. She walked straight up, not scripted, and we said. ‘You will be the very first customer to use it’. We showed her the screen, she typed it in. I said, ‘Use your credit card; I do not want to see your credit card’. She said, ‘I have the number in my head’. I said, ‘I will turn away’. She typed it in, did it correctly and, on the spot, got her transaction record. She said to me, ‘This is amazing. I thought I would not get out of here until 2 pm.’. It was 1.15 pm. She saved herself 45 minutes. She was ecstatic. It is a very good service.
There is a range of other reforms we are working on at the moment. I know when I announce them the member for Barkly will say they were all his ideas. Labor was in for 11 years and we have had a 30% increase in transactions over the last five years. All these stats are people waiting for hours reading War and Peace. Now you only need the NT News, member for Nelson. I thank MVR staff for being so tenacious in their efforts.
I will run through some of the things we are working on. There is an MVR application for smartphones and tablets so you can have your application on your new technology. That is being worked on at the moment. There is an improved call centre service. I note you spoke about the call centre service and someone ringing up. I can tell you how the call centre service works because I was there recently. The staff are all rostered to take phone calls. When it gets very busy at the front counter they relieve. By reducing the pressure on the front counter there are more options to be on the phones. That is how that service is improving. They told me how the response time in answering calls has gone down substantially since those online transactions have changed.
We are close to finalising our Australia Post payment option. We are removing light vehicle registration labels which will save the Territory government $100 000 a year. Removing the registration labels is a model which follows what has been done interstate in places like Western Australia and Tasmania. In New South Wales it changed on 1 January 2013. It will be continuing into the Australia Capital Territory on 1 July 2013. There is a whole range of reforms in that area.
There are driver’s licence reforms. We are looking at changing the frame of when you have to renew your licence. We are also looking at the balance of ensuring road safety and the requirement and testing period for eyesight tests so you will not have to go into MVR as much. It is not about scrapping things that are necessary, but about getting the balance right. That is something we are working on. There is a whole range of areas I could go through to talk about how things have improved.
I have reflected on the performance of the staff at the MVR. I thank those staff for the fantastic work they do. I also thank the staff at the Department of Transport for their efforts. It seems every day I am asking the Department of Transport to do something new, something inventive, and they are hugely responsive.
I go back to that issue about the WiFi on the buses. The member for Barkly said it was all his idea. The fact is two buses were driving around with WiFi-enabled capability for the last two years that were not enabled. I said I want WiFi on the buses. They bent over backwards to get WiFi on the buses, and not just two. There are now five operating in Darwin, three bus interchanges, five more to start in Alice Springs next month, and five more to start in Darwin next month. There will be 15 buses. There are 70 on the network in the Top End. Depending on the time frames to implement it, by around the middle of next March, 10 of those will have WiFi capabilities. People have been very quick to ring the ABC and criticise WiFi. People are saying - including the member for Nelson - ‘How many people can use WiFi when you are a senior paying $1 a fare, travelling from Humpty Doo?’ Let me just give some test data.
In the first three-and-a-half days, when people like the member for Nelson and all the Labor trolls who are on the social media sites were criticising, 1500 people connected to and used WiFi. You tell me those 1500 ...
Mr Wood: Did they talk to one another?
Mr GILES: They were not 1500 individual people, I presume; that is 1500 connections. Those people have had the opportunity to have better service on public transport. That will continue to grow. As we increase the services on the buses it will be a modernisation of our fleet and a complete improvement and massive overhaul of the public transport system in the first five-and-a-half months of this new government. Then there is the MVR and the improvements we are making to taxis and CPVs. There is a whole range of initiatives.
The member for Barkly said he was working on MVRs in the bush. Well, it was four years, and not one thing happened. I have gone through the department; there was nothing happening. That was a blatant lie, misleading on the floor of this Chamber. He did not say a thing. To come in here and lie like that! That is why I told the House today that I am working on five sites for MVRs in the bush. I will not rush it so we make a mistake. When we get the model right, it will be brought in. I stand by my convictions; it will happen. The buses have happened, the MVRs have happened. Transactions are going through the roof with, as I said, a 5800% increase. That 5800% is just amazing!
I sell the message again. If you do not need to go to the MVR to get an inspection, do not go. Go to the private sector - the same price, ease of service, and does not takes time off you and your family. For working families, it is a great opportunity.
I will not continue talking about this, but will finish by commenting on another completely ludicrous comment made by the member for Barkly when he spoke about Indigenous Territorians in prison. He was talking about something to do with transport. You tend to lose your way in listening to that fellow. He seems to be getting worse every day. It seems as if the intelligence of the House goes down every time he speaks, but that is another point.
Much of the issue of Indigenous Territorians in prison relates to traffic. The sad fact is, when he was the Transport minister and the Corrections minister, his government put more Aboriginal people in gaol than they housed under SIHIP, the Indigenous program. If he wants to challenge me to a debate on that, I will take him on. He is the bloke who spent $1.8bn – and has left it with us - on a new prison. Of $1.8bn, SIHIP has fewer people than his prison. If anyone should be hanging their heads in shame, it is him. He misleads the Chamber then comes out with stories like that. I am happy to take that debate on as a challenge.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for fighting for this issue. We will not be supporting the motion. It is not needed because the Country Liberal government has fixed it by completely overhauling and reforming the way MVR services are carried out. I thank the MVR staff. I again thank you for bringing this motion to the floor of this Chamber.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank all the speakers for their contribution to the debate. The comment I made about the WiFi was a bit of a dig because you had just got rid of the free bus fares. Pensioners can get on the bus for $1; they can now take their tablet, as you said, and do all their MVR work on the bus. That is a great idea …
Mr Giles: It is a seamless service.
Mr WOOD: I knew that is what you were trying to do all the time; it was only a dig. I am only learning about WiFi. I am old-fashioned; I would rather people talked in the buses. I have trouble when people go past with two ear plugs in. You might as well have gone past a robot. Sadly, with some of the technology we have today we are losing communication between each other which is a negative. I like to talk to people on public transport. I do not use the buses much in my area, but when I go down south I like to talk to people. That was only a dig about that issue.
Minister, you will not answer now, but you talked about not having registration stickers. I wonder how it is in Victoria. I am pretty sure you do not have to take your vehicle over the pits ...
Mr Giles: No, you do not.
Mr WOOD: It might be something worth looking at ...
Mr Giles: Already looking at it, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: Yes? I do not remember my father ever taking his car over the pits. Not having to take your vehicle over the pits would reduce the cost of living. On the other side, there are good safety reasons for having an inspection of your car every so many years. I raise that because the minister was using this debate to sum up on many of the good things he has been putting forward in relation to changes at the MVR. I thank the minister for using this debate to give us an update of what is happening at MVR. It is good he has responded in that way.
In summarising, regardless of whether there are people saying because there was a $20 fee for people renewing their licence at MVR, all of a sudden, people changed to going online, the point is you were using a punitive method that swept up everyone - those who could go online and those who could not - as a means of injecting more efficiency within MVR. That was the wrong approach. With good advertising and promotion, as with anything the government normally does, you could have achieved the same outcomes.
I am one of those who is slow off the mark when it comes to IT. Our man who looks after the computers is often in my office trying to repair what I have mucked up ...
Mr Elferink: That is not a cup holder, when you press the button and a little thing slides out; put a DVD in it next time.
Mr WOOD: All right. I pay some of my bills over the phone and through the Internet and have purchased things on the Internet. There are some people who cannot do that. They were the ones who were being punished for a concept that, rightly, the government was looking at implementing, which is getting more people online to reduce the queues. What the government was doing was good; the problem was the method they were using to achieve it. The end does not always justify the means.
Mr Deputy Speaker, once again, I thank the minister for changing the government’s mind on this issue. I thank the member for Drysdale for her efforts and support. I thank the people on this side who supported the motion, originally. As the Minister for Transport said, this motion is now redundant because the government has moved to scrap the law. I will not be taking any vote on this motion, thank you.
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Tourism NT Relocation to Alice Springs – Reconsideration of Decision
Tourism NT Relocation to Alice Springs – Reconsideration of Decision
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that
(a) the government stops the planned and forced move of Tourism NT staff to Alice Springs until they have conducted extensive consultation with the tourism industry; and
(b) before any political decision is made to force Tourism staff to Alice Springs a fully costed relocation report is tabled to this House for consideration.
The forced moved of the Tourism NT office headquarters to Alice Springs is well and truly under way. In fact, the opening of the office is expected in March; it is nearly a month late as the minister had announced it would be open in the first week of February. Just because the Country Liberal Party forced this decision upon Territorians with no evidence or mandate to do so from the tourism industry, does not mean it will escape criticism or review from this Chamber.
As opposition, we hold the government to account and, as shadow minster for Tourism, that is exactly what I will do. Governments make decisions every day about priorities, investing or cutting; prioritising or deeming initiatives not important; and keeping or scrapping government policies. In many of these decisions the reason behind them can fall into some key categories, and these are: evidence in research or what the experts are telling us; financial considerations; or politics. If we look at minister Conlan’s decision to move the Tourism NT headquarters from Darwin to Alice Springs through this prism it becomes very clear what this decision is all about.
First, was this decision based on evidence or research or what the experts were saying? The Country Liberal Party had many opportunities to outline their policies and plans before the election. On 25 July, before the election, the CLP released a two-page Tourism policy which made no mention of the plan to move the Tourism headquarters from Darwin to Alice Springs. There was not a single promise or mention within the Country Liberal Party election policy. Yet, without a mandate, a month-and-a-half later on 7 September, the minister for Tourism made the abrupt announcement on ABC radio before he even told his Tourism department.
Before, during, or after the election, minister Conlan has never produced any evidence or research to say that moving the Tourism department headquarters from Darwin to Alice Springs will increase tourist visitor numbers to all of the Territory ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! It is only a wee thing, but it is tradition to refer to members by their electorates, not their pronouns.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Johnston.
Mr VOWLES: Thank you, member for Port Darwin. I will do my best.
If we can establish this decision was not based on any evidence or research provided by the Northern Territory CLP government, perhaps it is based on practices by interstate counterparts. Let us look at the rest of the country when it comes to their tourism headquarters: South Australian Tourism Commission’s location of head office – Adelaide; Destination NSW’s location of head office – Sydney; Tourism Victoria’s location of head office – Melbourne; Tourism and Events Queensland’s location of head office – Brisbane; Tourism Tasmania’s location of head office – Hobart; and finally, Australian Capital Tourism’s location of head office - Canberra.
Looking at this list, it is apparent that this decision to take the headquarters for Tourism NT out of the capital city of the Territory defies logic. It is the equivalent of taking New South Wales tourism headquarters out of Sydney and moving it to Newcastle, the head office of Victoria and moving it to Geelong, or moving the head office of Adelaide and putting it in Mount Gambier ...
Mr Conlan: Or Coober Pedy
Mr VOWLES: Coober Pedy is a great place.
If the member for Greatorex did not base his decisions on research, a mandate in the Tourism policy before the election, or the practice of other states, perhaps he based his decision on talking to his tourism industry. We know that did not happen. I believe the experts of the tourism industry are the operators, those at the coalface. I understand that not a single tourism operator was consulted about this decision.
On the same day of the announcement by the member for Greatorex, Tourism Top End commented in the media that it did not believe relocating Tourism NT to Alice Springs would improve the tourism situation in Central Australia. It also had concerns in relation to recruiting and retaining tourism staff if it was based in Alice Springs.
The same day, the ABC also reported on the announcement, and I read from their report:
- A Top End tourism operator says the plan to move Tourism NT to Alice Springs has not been properly thought through.
Nightcliff Markets coordinator Ross Dudgeon used to run the Mindil Beach Markets, which attracts tens of thousands of tourists.
He says the agency is based in Darwin because most tourism business is done in the Top End.
‘Most of the tourism is in the Top End whether the government likes it or not’, he said.
‘Kakadu, Litchfield Park, in and around Darwin.
‘Just think of the travelling those executives are going to have to do from Alice Springs back up here because it’s not all technology, there’s a lot of one-on-one consultation’.
He is right. The tourism industry, the experts, were not consulted and many were opposed to the idea because it simply did not make sense.
As shadow minister, I took the time to let tourism operators know what was going on, and was overwhelmed by the response from tourism businesses across the Northern Territory. I will read an extract of one of the many responses I received when I e-mailed tourism businesses and operators:
- Dear Ken,
Thank heavens! Please fight against this move to Alice Springs with all your might. It is ridiculous. It is easy to see that it’s a terrible idea. My reasons are many Darwin staff will not relocate to Alice Springs for a variety of reasons. Many of them own their own home, have children in schools, and partners who work in Darwin. If they elect not to move, Tourism NT will lose years of historical knowledge and expertise.
There is a lack of accommodation in Alice Springs for people to move to. There is a lack of flights in and out of Alice Springs for people attending meetings. Travel costs between Darwin and Alice Springs are extremely high and senior staff will be taking these flights regularly. Tourism NT will be forced to recruit new staff to replace those who will not move and then pay relocation costs to Alice Springs. It will be harder to recruit experienced staff to live in Alice Springs due to its size, location, high costs of living, housing availability and the expense of flights into and out of the town.
She went on to say:
- In the next Cabinet reshuffle, Matt Conlan will no longer be Tourism minister and it will all be moved back to Darwin again. It has been tried previously and did not work.
Tourism NT will need to keep a Darwin office and process will be duplicated leading to higher costs. The move isn’t subject to the use of financial scrutiny. Matt Conlan says it’s important to move Tourism NT to Alice Springs to revitalise the tourism industry. It’s obvious from that statement that he does not even begin to understand the role of Tourism NT. It will have no effect on businesses in Alice Springs apart from real estate rentals and removalists.
If they want to move Tourism NT somewhere that would revitalise the tourism industry then Sydney would be a smarter choice. There it would be closer to inbound operators, major wholesalers, ATEC, Tourism Australia and other tourism operators and consumers.
It’s been handled in a totally unprofessional manner which has destabilised the current staff creating low morale. Many are, and will, leave if other opportunities arise, depleting the talent pool.
Darwin is a major gateway into Australia and a capital city. It is where the head tourism office should be. Moving it to Alice Springs is like moving Tourism Queensland to Rockhampton.
These are not my words but the words of someone deep in the industry and knowledgeable of the industry - one of the many people the member for Greatorex took no time to consult on a very important decision.
Another tourism operator was on the ABC radio on 27 September talking about the move. Due to lack of information from the CLP, of her own volition, she took the time to get in touch with tourism operators and survey them on the decision. About 75% to 80 % of tour operators did not agree with the decision to move Tourism NT to Alice Springs. The CLP made no attempt to talk to industry, which is appalling. It seems to be the way the member for Greatorex and this government operates.
This current CLP government does not need to listen to me or the tourism industry about why this decision does not make sense, it can turn to its CLP forefathers. In mid-1992, the then CLP government, under the leadership of Chief Minister Marshall Perron and then Tourism Minister Roger Vale, moved the headquarters, which were in Alice Springs, to Darwin. This followed release of a report, Review of the Northern Territory Tourist Commission, prepared by Jim Kennedy. The CLP government in 1992 knew it was a tough decision to move headquarters from Alice Springs to Darwin, but they knew it was the right decision. They relied on the evidence, research, and advice from an expert to base their decisions. Mr Jim Kennedy, at the time, was known as - and I quote from the NT News - ‘Australia’s best credentialed tourism expert’. He provided a report to the CLP government which gave them the evidence and advice they needed to make the right decision.
Mr Kennedy’s report spoke specifically about where the head office for the Northern Territory Tourist Commission should be. I quote directly from the report the CLP based their decision on:
- I am sure that the best interest of the NT and its tourism industry will be served by ‘biting the bullet’ now, as part of the reconstruction of the NTTC and placing its Head Office in Darwin. I am also aware that Alice Springs is strongly opposed to such a move and that is understandable.
Mr Kennedy went on to say in his report:
- The Head Office of the NTTC should be in Darwin. It is the seat of government in the Territory, and Darwin, with its international airport and capital city status is the appropriate location of the Head Office of an industry that is of such vital importance to the NT. Parochialism and politics will, I am sure, cause this recommendation to be controversial but I cannot avoid recommending what I believe is essential for the NT tourist industry.
This CLP government is becoming more and more ridiculous as each day goes by. Tourism headquarters in Alice Springs has all been done before. It was the CLP government that saw the error of its ways and made the right decision based on an independent report’s advice to base the headquarters for tourism in the capital city of Darwin.
We can safely conclude the decision was not based on evidence, research, consultation with the tourism industry or even the wisdom of past decisions of CLP governments. Was the reasons for this decision based on financial considerations? I am very keen to hear from the member for Greatorex that this decision is saving money. Unfortunately, though, to date the CLP has not provided any detail on the financial cost of this move. There was certainly no cost analysis provided at the time of the decision.
The ABC reported on 4 December that the mini-budget has not provided any further details on the department of Tourism’s move to Alice Springs. The government has committed $0.25m to setting up the new Northern Territory Tourism Commission in Alice Springs, but there has been a lack of information on the department’s move to Central Australia, with the Tourism budget remaining relatively unchanged. No information has been provided about how much the move will cost, or how many jobs were cut or redeployed to Alice Springs.
With the member for Greatorex and the CLP still silent on the financial burden of the move, let us explore what we think the cost might be. Last year at the end of September, the union representing Tourism NT workers, CPSU, conducted a survey amongst their Tourism NT members. At the time, 95 staff were at Tourism NT. The CPSU’s question was, ‘If you were offered a position in Alice Springs under the present conditions, would you accept it?’ The results were 60 people said no, only five responded yes.
I applaud the member for Greatorex’s decision to not have any forced redundancy as a result of moving the department. It is the right decision. However, if only five employees in September said they were willing to move to Alice Springs, that means a lot of advertising for positions. It is about time the member for Greatorex came clean with a fully costed relocation report. I hope he is tabling it in this House tonight. Surely, he has had time to prepare, with his motion having been on the Notice Paper since last year.
Off the top of my head, these are just a few of the costs involved: money will be spent on relocating whoever does choose to move, including flights, removalists, transporting people’s entire home and contents from Darwin to Alice Springs; money spent advertising the vacant positions in Alice Springs; money spent redeploying those not moving to other areas of the public service; the cost of duplication of infrastructure or personnel in Alice Springs and Darwin; the ongoing cost of flying Tourism NT staff between Darwin and Alice Springs for matters that cannot be dealt with using multimedia; and the complete fit-out and transformation of Jalistan House to include new walls, lights, paint, carpet, computers, photocopiers and everything else you need to run an office. It is obvious to me the relocation of department headquarters some 1500 km across Australia is not a cheap exercise, because the member for Greatorex has failed to release any figures to date on the cost.
If this spending is all coming from within Tourism NT’s current budget, it means less spending on marketing strategies and campaigns to get tourists into the NT. After this exercise of moving Tourism NT, it will not have brought a single extra tourism dollar into the Northern Territory.
This decision is coming with more than a financial cost to the Territory. Good people are leaving the department. We are losing expert knowledge in tourism as they either go to other departments or leave the public service altogether. With no mandate to do so, the CLP asked employees and their families to completely uproot their homes and lives in Darwin, and whether they wanted to continue working for Tourism NT. Tourism NT is in peril as years of tourism knowledge is being lost. A lack of job security is one of the biggest causes of stress for working families. This decision is forcing fantastic employees to turn their backs on Tourism NT as they search for secure jobs elsewhere. We can safely say this decision has not been based on financial considerations; rather, it is a decision with substantial financial and tourism knowledge loss.
Finally, what is the CLP’s decision to move the tourism headquarters to Alice Springs really about? I believe it is purely politics. This decision is about giving the members of the Alice Springs caucus what they want. The numbers on that side of the House are so perilous that the Chief Minister can only roll over to the demands of its Alice Springs caucus even if it is at the expense of all logic, all the people of Darwin and the Northern Territory.
The member for Greatorex is only interested in doing everything he possibly can for Alice Springs and is anti-Darwin. Let us face it, if the member for Greatorex could move this House of parliament to Alice Springs today, he would have a crack at it. It is quite obvious when you read the member for Greatorex’s first speech in parliament as a new minister, his priority was to govern for the people of Alice Springs.
He said:
- It is now time to re-regionalise the Northern Territory. It is now time to give regional parts of the Northern Territory the clout they so richly deserve.
He went on to say:
- Where the bureaucracy is located is not going to make one iota of difference to those tourism operators in the Top End. It will make an enormous difference to the social and economic welfare of the Centre - Alice Springs. Having a serious government body based in Central Australia will give not only the town and the CBD an enormous lift. It will also give the residents of Alice Springs a psychological spring in their step.
I quote from the Centralian Advocate article on Friday, 23 November:
- Mr Conlan said the new Alice Springs office was expected to be operational in the first week of February to coincide with major construction in the northern end of the CBD.
‘It will give the town a lot more confidence. It will see an agency with clout’, he said.
‘The CEO will be based here. It will give the town that needed lift’.
Mr Conlan said the office’s relocation to Alice Springs would add to the local economy and improve the Todd Mall’s aesthetics ...
Moving government departments should be based on evidence that products and services can be delivered better, because of cost savings or proof that it will significantly help the department to achieve its core aims. What minister in their right mind moves tourism headquarters away from its capital city because they want to make a mall look better or give local residents a psychological lift? This is not a good use of taxpayers’ money or a good reason to uproot the lives of employees and their families.
The member for Greatorex is using taxpayers’ money meant for increasing tourism spending in the Northern Territory economy. I cannot emphasise enough that this money must be used wisely. In the Treasurer’s media release of 19 December, she said:
- The headquarters of government tourism is being regionalised in Alice Springs and we will see growth and excitement in the town like never before. Already tourism staff are relocating to Alice, bringing their families, their energy and their contribution to the prosperity of the town. This is very exciting.
Does that sound very nice? I am genuinely happy for those people who have decided to settle in Alice Springs. I used to live there; it is a great and beautiful place. However, you do not get people into a town by stealth. You do not move government department headquarters because you want to increase your population. It should only be done because it will significantly help the department achieve its core aim: to attract tourists into the NT.
There have been other signs that the member for Greatorex is anti-Darwin. Since coming into government, the member for Greatorex and his CLP colleagues have overseen threats to the continuation of Darwin events: the Beer Can Regatta and the Greek Glenti; cuts to the iconic museum; scrapping future Super League Rugby Union events in Darwin; and we cannot forget his shameful scrapping of the event that generates $10m into the NT economy, the Arafura Games.
The fact is the member for Greatorex has focused on all things Alice Springs. He has managed to secure more flights for Yulara and Alice Springs whilst Darwin flights have been cut.
Another reason I am led to believe this decision is purely political is the swapping of CEOs we have made with Tasmania. The former CEO, John Fitzgerald, was very well respected and was doing amazing things for the Territory. Whilst I welcome the new head of Tourism NT, I do not welcome his undertaking dual roles as CEO of Tourism and head of the Chief Minister’s Department in Alice Springs. I hope we get the better end of the stick.
When you look at publicly available statistics, it makes you wonder if all this politics is really for the benefit of the Tourism industry. I will quickly run through a couple of statistics. In 2011-12, total visitors under John Fitzgerald were up 8% and in Tourism Tasmania under Tony Mayell they were down 4%; interstate visitors up 13% under John Fitzgerald and in Tasmania under Tony Mayell as CEO down 5%; visitor expenditure under John Fitzgerald up 4.8% and Tourism Tasmania under Tony Mayell down 12%; holiday visitors up 0.4% in the NT and Tourism Tasmania down by 9%; and holiday expenditure in the NT up 1.4% and Tourism Tasmania under Tony Mayell minus 15%. I have spoken with so many tourism operators who really have immense praise for the former CEO John Fitzgerald. I wish him every success in his new role as the new Tourism CEO in Tasmania.
There is one aspect that shows how political this decision is; that is, a lack of costings that have been provided to date. The CLP government received a message loud and clear last Saturday that their drastic price hikes to the cost of living were hurting Territorians. The CLP keeps blaming the former Labor government for the pain they are causing Territorians, but many Territorians can see through this CLP lie. No doubt, many Territorians in Wanguri told the Chief Minister and this government on Saturday they do not believe them anymore.
Many Territorians do not believe the CLP blame game because they can see the CLP still has money to throw around while Territorians are suffering. They still had money to pay consultants nearly $1m for six months work along with paying their rent, food and every other bill they were racking up. When all this is revealed they will still manage to find millions of dollars to move a department headquarters, based on no research or evidence, while they are hitting Territorians hard with the cost of living.
I have no doubt the reason we have not heard from the government about the cost of this decision is because Territorians will balk at this waste of money at their expense. No one is denying Central Australia is an integral part of the tourism industry and we want tourism to do better in Alice Springs, but it simply does not make sense to move a department headquarters from the capital city. There have been no announcements of what financial benefits, if any, this decision would have in bringing more tourism visitors to the Northern Territory, thereby increasing the tourism visitor spending in the Territory economy.
The Chief Minister is rolling over to the demands of his CLP Alice Springs caucus members because, let us face it, he needs every vote he can get. This decision is pure politics. It was a CLP government that moved the office from Alice Springs to Darwin because it was the right thing to do, based on expert advice. The CLP, to date, has not provided any details of the financial cost to reverse that decision in 1992.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the motion to the House.
Mr CONLAN (Tourism and Major Events): Mr Deputy Speaker - are you okay?
Mr McCarthy: Yes, would you like to hear me?
Mr CONLAN: No, I will speak now, get this over with, and make it as painless as possible.
For someone who had six months to prepare a speech, that was pretty ordinary. He had six months to get that organised. I know Peter Wellings normally writes your speeches but that was far too undergraduate for Peter’s work; it must have been your own handiwork. It had the member for Johnston all the way through it.
The member for Johnston talked about evidence. He based his whole argument on not only a six-month-old motion, but evidence compiled by the Kennedy report 20 years ago. The evidence of 1992 is a vastly different landscape to 2013.
That aside, I will address some of the issues in the motion. The transition to Alice Springs was driven by a professional change management plan to effect a very smooth transition, and that is exactly what has taken place. The Alice Springs headquarters of Tourism NT is now operational and is currently housed within the Peter Sitzler building. There have been no forced moves, no forced redundancies, and no sackings.
The member for Johnson alluded to the CPSU. I am sure he is a member of the CPSU; he may well follow in Kay Densley’s steps when she steps down because he has the same wit as Kay Densley.
This is a memo the CPSU NT Regional Director issued on 24 September, again about six months ago. It is in a question and answer format:
- As a tourism operator, you know many Tourism NT staff on a first name basis. They have now been given a choice, move to Alice Springs or lose their job in Tourism NT. Staff, skills, their knowledge of Top End businesses, their personal working relationship with you, as a tourism industry colleague, will be lost forever. Tourism NT staff have told that they are expected to leave their partners, their elderly parents, their children, their homes behind in Darwin and move to Alice Springs or be sacked from Tourism NT.
As you can see, there are some parallels between the argument of the member for Johnston and the Regional Director of the CPSU. These are the lies, muckraking and hysteria being spread by the CPSU, lifted from this and placed into the member for Johnston’s speech - written by him because it does not have any of the handiwork of that eminent writer or scribe, Peter Wellings, who is pretty good at this.
- How does this affect your tourism business?
The answer written in question and answer form by the CPSU.
- Do you want to promote your harbour or fishing cruise? Better dry dock your boat on the Todd River in Alice Springs, there will be nobody in Darwin to help.
Worried about availability of flights coming to Darwin? Do not worry, visitors can catch a bus up the track from Alice Springs.
Want to help an off-peak marketing idea? There will be plenty of shoulder season campaigns in Alice, there will be nobody in Darwin to organise Top End campaigns.
This was the hysteria being spread by the CPSU six months ago. This motion came to the House about six months ago and is largely outdated and irrelevant.
The Alice Springs HQ is now operating and is currently housed within the Peter Sitzler building. Tony Mayell, the new Chief Executive Officer of Tourism NT, officially started in Alice Springs on 3 December 2012. He is a long-term Territorian and has been part of the Territory landscape for nearly 55 years. Adam Coward, Executive Director of Marketing, has voluntarily relocated to Alice Springs. He saw an opportunity, jumped at it, and started there on 29 January. A number of staff decided to take up the option and move to Alice Springs. It is not such a bad place.
We know it is a Labor thing to hate Alice Springs. They do not like it; they cannot stand it. It is not a bad place, after all; plenty of staff presented with those options decided to move. Other key positions in Alice Springs are being recruited locally, and there are plenty more relocations from Darwin to Alice Springs to come.
Growing tourism and the tourism industry is a major part of this government’s plan to expand our economy and build a bigger, better and prosperous Northern Territory. We do not shy away from investing in tourism or investing in and growing regional areas like Alice Springs. We need to do it. We saw the call and the opportunity to grow the regions and give the regions a bit of clout.
It is anticipated the transition of all agency functions and resources will be completed by the end of June this year. This will include moving Alice Springs headquarters into Jalistan House, which occupies a prime site in the Todd Mall in the centre of town. It will also incorporate the new Visitor Information Centre operated by Tourism Central Australia. It is a wonderful position in prime retail space in the CBD. It will go a long way to revitalising the CBD of Alice Springs - a much-needed revitalisation. Couple that with the roadworks going on with opening up the top end of the Todd Mall; it will become an absolute hub for tourists and businesses alike once all this is finally completed.
The current Visitor Information Centre is in a less than ideal site on Gregory Terrace. That will cease being a visitor centre, but will still remain an administration hub for Tourism Central Australia. Having a strong tourism presence in the CBD will transform the centre of Alice Springs. Timing of the move to Jalistan House will be worked through to align with the completion of works by the Alice Springs Town Council in Parsons Street.
Final costs of the relocation of Tourism NT’s head office are still being determined because some tender responses planned for the new HQ building have not yet been received. Costs will also be impacted by the level of support provided to staff who choose to relocate to Alice Springs - as I said, those who have chosen to move to Alice Springs, not forced to move to Alice Springs or be sacked. This will be worked through with staff members on an individual basis. Final staff numbers in Alice Springs will be known by the end of June this year.
Costs are expected to be available at the Estimates Committee hearings, member for Johnston, so you have plenty of time to work on your questions for estimates, although if this speech is indicative of the sort of work you do in six months - God help us with what another four month's work will be like come estimates.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Tourism NT will retain a significant presence in Darwin, as well as maintaining appropriate resources in Sydney to work directly with major southern source markets. The transition to Alice Springs continues to evolve smoothly, and there has been no impact on the agency’s activities and service delivery.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the motion before the House. It is logical, measured, and is asking some really good questions. The minister for Tourism has chosen to avoid the real essence of this motion: that the government stop the planned forced move of Tourism NT staff to Alice Springs until they have conducted extensive consultation with the tourism industry. It is logical; it makes sense. It is, once again, an example of a government listening to Territorians, not lecturing Territorians.
The minister has been quite dogmatic in his explanation that this is good because he says this is good; this will happen because he says this will happen. He has not talked about consultation with the industry, so the shadow member who looks after the Tourism portfolio has done the consultation, and there are some very real concerns. It is a logical request that the government look into this forced moved. The holier-than-thou minister is telling the department, ‘You will do this, it will be good for you and you will realise that in time’.
I was very interested in the minister’s language around ‘chosen to move to Alice Springs’. That is an interesting way to phrase a forced move, ‘People chose to move to Alice Springs’. Well, let us hear about it. Let us talk about how and why they chose to move to Alice Springs, minister. Are there some incentives, for instance? How did you conduct what you are saying is a good regionalisation policy and plan? How did people pick up on your ideas and agree that a move to Alice Springs was the best thing? I live in Tennant Creek and I would like to know, minister, what incentives you can apply where people will go with you, take up your offer, move their families and relocate to a new town and a new community? That is important information. You do not need to cut it short and leave us wondering and guessing. Give some more information. Tell us about the incentive package and give the modelling on that. Give the dollar figure around how it was conducted.
The member for Johnston, the shadow minister for Tourism, said in the second part of the motion before the House, ‘before any political decision is made to force Tourism staff to Alice Springs, a fully costed relocation report is tabled in this House for consideration’. That is fair and logical. The government is lecturing Territorians on economics, telling Territorians what is good for them and what they have to do.
Let us look at the economic modelling of this move from Darwin to Alice Springs. The shadow minister for Tourism did his research in this area. In his speech there were some good anecdotal comments he recorded during his research which were directly from tourism operators. One I picked up was that travel costs between Darwin and Alice Springs are extremely high and senior staff would be taking these flights regularly. Another comment said it has been tried previously and did not work.
If the minister for Tourism wants to do a bit of research, there are some contemporary examples of where the department has been relocated to Alice Springs and what occurred with those travel costs where public sector employees needed to do much more travelling to conduct business. I remember, as a lay person, seeing those officers travelling back and forward. I saw in Alice Springs Airport, for instance, people I knew who lived in Darwin and could not relocate because they had family commitments; they had established their families in Darwin. They chose to do more extensive travel between the two destinations of Darwin and Alice Springs. It was time consuming and cost a great deal. It probably detracted from their efficiency in being able to perform their duties. This has happened before in the Territory. There were outcomes recorded and those decisions were reversed.
The shadow minister for Tourism, the member for Johnston, is asking for two very logical procedures that you, as the minister, should engage in to tell this story as it is.
I also note in the shadow minister’s speech he took time to let tourism operators know what was going on and was overwhelmed by the response from tourism businesses across the Northern Territory. It was important that he took the time, a logical way to research, and explored and deconstructed what the minister brought forward as a strategy. It seemed to happen so fast that it is safe to say the minister did not take any time at all. He was determined to deliver a big headline for Alice Springs, and good luck to him.
Nobody disagrees with regionalisation or that Alice Springs is not a good town, an iconic part of the Territory. But the shadow minister for Tourism is saying maybe this decision was not based on good modelling or good research; it was rushed. The motion before the House says stop the bus, let us look at this very carefully before it has progressed any further and there are dire consequences for tourism in the Northern Territory in relation to staffing, budgets, relocation packages and incentives that the minister would do well to outline for the House when he mentions employees who chose to relocate to Alice Springs.
As there is an opportunity to talk about tourism, I ask in this debate, what about Tennant Creek? The minister for Tourism travels extensively between Alice Springs and Darwin and he would regularly see Tennant Creek from about 23 000 feet. I want to know what this move is doing for Tennant Creek and the Barkly. The minister might like to drop in some time and talk to us in Tennant Creek because an issue has developed around two of our iconic tourist points when the Tennant Creek Foundation folded as a result of the CLP government refusing to extend the funding for an additional allocation that was needed.
I will explain it for members who are interested. We have two iconic tourist destinations in Tennant Creek. Our bid is pretty simple; we just want to hold the tourists for a night. For two nights would be even better, but if we can hold the tourists for a night then they spend the day looking at Tennant Creek and our tourist attractions and spend the night contributing to our economy in our business sector. The following day, they fuel up, buy their stores, and move on to the next destination. We are not asking for much.
Under the previous government we looked at the Nyinkka Nyunyu Cultural Centre and at the Battery Hill Mining Centre. We said they are the two iconic jewels that could achieve this objective of getting tourists to stay the night in Tennant Creek. Those two businesses were operating in isolation but reflected a fantastic tourism experience for visitors to Tennant Creek, because not only did they get the cultural background, tour, and interpretation of the first Australians, they also got the iconic mining history of Tennant Creek.
These two facilities needed a business plan. They needed to look at a coordinated approach to working together. They needed a business model. That was delivered by the previous Labor government by creating the Tennant Creek Foundation. These things cost money, there is no doubt about it. This minister is talking about the regions and this move being a good initiative for the regions. I challenge him to come to Tennant Creek and have a look at our iconic tourist attractions and what has happened since the Minister for Regional Development, the member for Namatjira, decided there would be no more additional funding to get that Tennant Creek Foundation over the line and to cement it as a good business model, as the previous Labor government was doing. It was obviously done in spite because the whole plan was to try to support an area that is having a go.
We are struggling in the tourism stakes. We have iconic areas around us with the creation, under the Labor government, of the Davenport National Park, the Limmen River National Park, the Limmen Marine Park, the Indigenous ranger programs, and the incredible joint management of parks policy. We have created a track right through the Barkly, but we want people to stop in Tennant Creek for a night.
The Tennant Foundation was funded by the Labor government, and there was no doubt it had some challenges. Lobbying the previous minister, I was able to achieve some extra funding that would give the Tennant Creek Foundation that opportunity to grow its roots and cement its position; to create the business model we needed for these two iconic tourist facilities. We recruited, most recently, a very good CEO who was working tirelessly to build this model. Unfortunately, when the CLP government came to town they said no additional funding, ‘There is no more; you are on the bones of what you have’. It was the lecture they give the Territory: tighten your belt, work harder and make do with what you have. This is in a struggling regional area. Therefore, the Tennant Creek Foundation Board decided it was too risky as they did not have government support. The government had walked away from them and Tennant Creek and, therefore, they decided to wind up.
We now have the two tourist icons with a possibility of really creating that economic base for Tennant Creek in tourism which is isolated and struggling. Luckily, Julalikari Council Aboriginal Corporation has taken over Nyinkka Nyunyu again and is doing the best it can.
The Battery Hill Mining Centre is out on a limb. We will need strong community action to keep it going and keep the tourist attraction for Tennant Creek. We are talking significant attractions with O’Loughlin’s mineral collection – world-renowned - Battery Hill, the underground mining tours and the explanation, the story telling, and the orientation around Tennant Creek’s incredible mining history. They are out on a limb now and really struggling.
I have spoken to the Minister for Correctional Services in this House about really getting that link with the Barkly work camp. We could do more there in giving prisoners opportunities in training to employment and trying to use alternative solutions to help the Battery Hill Mining Centre. I hope the Minister for Correctional Services takes me up on that. I will continue to lobby for that.
Also housed in the Battery Hill Mining Museum facility is our Tourist Information Officer. We are not quite sure what the future holds for that officer. The minister will be able to take the heat out of this. This person is a long-term Territorian and Tennant Creek identity. We need to know that position is secure, will be supported, and will continue to be the bottom line in tourist information in the iconic Battery Hill Mining Centre.
There is another opportunity for Tennant Creek, the work the previous minister for Resources did with the Prospector’s Association ...
Mrs LAMBLEY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. One of the members across there has a sign in front of his desk which is not acceptable in parliament. It is not appropriate.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we have that sign removed? Madam Speaker mentioned this before. I do not want to see that again.
Mr McCARTHY: Mr Deputy Speaker, I will talk about what the previous minister for Resources did for Tennant Creek by not only supporting the exploration programs that will deliver our next mining boom, but working with the Prospector’s Association of the Northern Territory creating opportunities for Tennant Creek to, once again, promote its mining culture and history.
There are great examples around the country of where these fossickers, these amateur prospectors, come en masse into small regional remote towns. They come in their caravans with their rigs and metal detectors and they go and fossick. They explore country looking for their fortune. It is a really good grassroots initiative which brings people to small towns such as Tennant Creek. When these people come they need good, accurate information. The pastoralists support that; they do not want people wandering everywhere. The mining tenements and those mining leases need to be identified, and they also need that friendly orientation about the town and the services Tennant Creek offers.
The Tourist Information Officer at the Battery Hill Mining Centre, the ideal place, is the ideal person to be able to build this new opportunity in tourism for Tennant Creek. Minister, we really need to know that position is supported and safe. We have already been a victim of some savage cuts that were mean-spirited and showed no real drive to build the regions. It was pretty straightforward when the letter came through. It said it was all over, with no more additional support, therefore, do it on our own. That was the sentiment.
Minister, you have some good questions to answer. We would like you to come to Tennant Creek to show you what is happening. I believe you will be there on the weekend. It would be good if you talk to a few locals, search out these opportunities I have been talking about, and hear first-hand, because you will be visiting Tennant Creek on the weekend for your Central Council meeting.
Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to talk about Tennant Creek and the Barkly, regional initiatives, and how things can be done properly in a measured and appropriate way.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I respond to the motion put forward by the member for Johnston by first stating we, on this side of the Chamber, do not support this motion. Reading between the lines, it is quite a hideous motion. From what I have just heard from the member for Barkly, he does not sound particularly convinced by it either.
The motion is that:
- … the government stops the planned and forced move of Tourism NT staff to Alice Springs until they have conducted extensive consultation with the tourism industry …
Reading between the lines, I am hearing from the opposition what is not a story about tourism particularly, but about their objection to anything positive happening to Alice Springs. Anyone listening tonight would catch on to that very quickly. This Darwin-centric, egocentric former Labor government, now the opposition, has always had a problem with that place south of the Berrimah Line, 1500 km down the road. That place called Alice Springs is a thorn in their side forever. This motion is simply a statement about their dread, loathing, and antipathy towards the town of Alice Springs.
I take it as a great insult, being the member for Araluen, a long-term resident of Alice Springs. It is plain to see the opposition is still on about how terrible Alice Springs is and is intent on ensuring nothing positive happens in resources and stimulating the economy and wellbeing of people in Alice Springs.
I see this is a particularly narrow-minded, bigoted, parochial type of motion to put forward. It did not fool anyone, member for Johnston. It is bordering on quite disgusting that this type of motion is brought forward in this parliament. This is the Northern Territory parliament, for all Territorians. It is not just about Darwin. We all love and adore Darwin. I absolutely adore spending time here although I am away from my family. I can see this is the capital city of the Territory, the gateway to Asia. It is a wonderful city and there are some wonderful people who live here. We are all committed to making sure Darwin expands and continues to be the beautiful city it has become.
However, there is more to the Northern Territory than Darwin. This group of people across the other side of the room does not like to look beyond the city boundaries of Darwin. They were reminded of their narrow-mindedness on 25 August last year. Apart from the members for Barkly and Nhulunbuy, there was no support for Labor outside of Darwin.
Darwin people have been well looked after and well catered for by the former Labor government, now in opposition. They still have some strong connections to the people of Darwin which was illustrated finely on the weekend. We have been reminded of that. There is not much support outside of Darwin for this dismal excuse called the Labor Party. Making statements like this on the floor of the parliament is adding salt to the wound. It is a reminder for all Territorians that the former Labor government never stood for anywhere outside of Darwin and never will. They are not interested in the regions or in trying to make things happen outside of Darwin.
For the benefit of the people on the other side of the room, the tourism industry is a very significant industry throughout the Northern Territory, not just in Darwin. One of the main reasons why we, as the new government, made this decision to regionalise the tourism industry – regionalisation is a concept not familiar to the former Labor government, the opposition - is because we could see that tourism is an essential part of the economy, not just in Darwin but throughout the Northern Territory.
The member for Barkly made that point; tourism is essential to the economy of his town of Tennant Creek, not just in Darwin. A place as small as Tennant Creek relies on the tourism industry for its wellbeing, as we do in Alice Springs. Alice Springs is the second largest and most important centre in the Territory and tourism in Alice Springs is our No 1 industry.
The member for Johnston is having a big yawn there, illustrating once again the total ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, please withdraw that.
Mrs LAMBLEY: I withdraw that. Sorry, Madam Speaker. The demonstrated disinterest of the opposition in Alice Springs is clear and palpable.
Tourism is an extremely significant industry throughout the Northern Territory. Alice Springs has suffered terribly in the last five years since the global economic crisis, the mismanagement of the government finances by the former Labor government and the 11 years of neglect of Labor. We have suffered; our tourism industry has experienced tough times.
The same tune was repeated by the member for Barkly. He has described how the Labor government let the Barkly down. They are now experiencing tough times in Tennant Creek. He described the problems faced by key tourism centres in Tennant Creek, and told a story about the problems of those centres, attributing those problems to this new government that has been in for less than six months. I remind the opposition ...
Mr McCarthy: We were building it up and you ripped it out.
Mrs LAMBLEY: The story the member for Barkly told us is completely different to the story told to me just two weeks ago by some people who have direct interest in the Battery Hill Visitors Centre. The stories I heard completely contradicted the stories told by the member for Barkly. Here we have more misinformation, more mistruths being peddled by the Labor Party, the sad and sorry opposition over there. The best they can do is peddle nonsense and continue to increase anxiety and angst in the community.
The story I was told was quite different. It was a story about the Battery Hill centre being run in a commercially unsustainable way for a long time. They have struggled to get, at this time of year, even a couple of visitors through each day. They are trying to run it like a business but they just do not have the tourists coming through town. They have not been coming through for years. The member for Barkly presided over that. He was the minister in the last government for several years. He knew it was a problem but he was too busy spending all his time in Darwin.
We know that because the people of Tennant Creek did not see the member for Barkly in Tennant Creek for about four years. Now he is out of his big job, back to being just the member for Barkly, he is starting to spend a little more time there and is realising the former Labor government took its eye off the ball. It allowed the Barkly region and Tennant Creek to slip into a very serious state when it came to tourism ...
Mr McCarthy: That is rubbish!
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes, we have heard lots of rubbish from the opposition, but when you hear the truth, that is when they start to yell and scream ...
Members interjecting.
Mrs LAMBLEY: I can hear mumblings over there because the truth is completely foreign to the opposition.
Over the last 10 years in Alice Springs we have had some interesting times in tourism. We have lost airlines; they have come and gone under the former Labor government. To our credit and the credit of the minister for Tourism who has worked tirelessly over the last five-and-a-half months, we celebrate Tiger Airways coming back to Alice Springs. That is what this government is all about when it comes to tourism. Tourism moving a significant part of its operation to Alice Springs and now Tiger is back in Alice Springs, is good news. All we hear from the opposition is wah, wah, wah because they are egocentric and Darwin-centric and that is all they can see. They have tunnel vision; it is all about Darwin.
In Alice Springs we celebrate the fact that this government has decided to recognise the second largest centre in the Northern Territory, one of the tourism meccas of the whole of Australia. Central Australia is one of the places where people want to go. They want to go at least once in their lifetime and once they have been they want to go back because the experience is beautiful and unique. We are so deeply proud of it. The people who sit across the other side of the room are not proud of anywhere apart from their own back yard, which does not extend as far as the Barkly. Poor old member for Barkly there, he sits alone. I bet none of his ...
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Treasurer continues to use ageist remarks, ‘the poor old member for Barkly’.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Any deflection, any way to take off the pressure from the pathetic group of people over there. I will not refer to his age because, obviously, that is a very sore spot for the member for Barkly. He sits alone. He is beating his drum saying, ‘Remember us, remember the’ …
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I call the Treasurer many things, but I have never called her old.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Barkly, there is no need for those frivolous points of order. Minister, you have the call.
Mrs LAMBLEY: The member for Barkly, what a sensitive human being he is. However, he is on his own. Of the rest of them, most of them are from Darwin. They are not interested in anywhere apart from Darwin, so he had to tell us a little story tonight about how things are so grim in Tennant Creek. Do you know why they are grim? Because you took your eye off the ball, member for Barkly. You were a minister of the former government and now you are trying to explain to your fellow residents of Tennant Creek just why things are so poor. The problems of Tennant Creek and the Tennant Creek tourism industry being the way it is are not down to five-and-a-half months of this government. It is about the former government, the opposition sitting over there, realising that things are pretty bleak outside of Darwin.
I absolutely reject this motion put forward by the member for Johnston tonight. It is all about their need to encapsulate all the funds, all the resources into Darwin and try to dismiss the needs of anywhere else when it came to the interests of the Northern Territory.
The member for Barkly talked about the real essence of tourism and that these decisions have to be logical and measured. I do not recall anything from the former government being logical and measured when it came to anything outside of Darwin. They were very much about themselves. There was no logic, no sensitivity, nothing apart from selfishness and Darwin-centric policy in place.
Madam Speaker, I am astounded the member for Johnston was even allowed to bring this forward by his colleagues because what it has effectively done is exposed them for the bigots they are.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, I support this motion. The government must stop the planned and forced move of Tourism NT staff to Alice Springs until it has conducted an extensive consultation. For the member for Araluen’s knowledge, this is not about Alice Springs versus Darwin; this is about consultation with the tourism industry.
The minister was quoted last year on ABC radio:
- This election was essentially won in remote and regional parts of the NT and it is incumbent of us to honour what the electorate has handed us, which is government, and that is to re-resource and re-regionalise parts of the NT.
Minister, is this quote the basis of your need to move the department of Tourism and some of the Department of Parks and Wildlife staff to Alice Springs? A whole government department is to be relocated to honour an electorate area that handed you government?
I have no problem in relocating staff around the Territory and regionalising services is not a problem to me, but this needs to be well thought out, not a knee-jerk reaction or an action to repay a region for their support and loyalty. It needs to be a move based on consultation and research. What is best for the service or the government department? Is the outcome so urgent we must act in haste, making announcements before we have researched the move with some policies and plans to back this up? My colleague, the member for Johnston, tonight called on the minister, the member for Greatorex, to give us some statistics and costings – but, nothing.
If this outcome is so urgent, it is even more incredible the minister admitted the move was to suit himself as a minister and for his CEO. Building organisations around people is not right. This move reflects on your government which is making decisions and changes around individuals rather than good, well-thought-out policy.
All these issues are equally concerning with the move of Parks and Wildlife staff to Alice Springs as well. Do not get me wrong, minister, my view on these moves is no reflection of the skill level of the CEO or staff. The current acting Parks and Wildlife CEO is a person who has an extremely high skill level with a wealth of knowledge. This view about moving and relocating staff is to suit the minister and the needs of individuals. What happens if there is a change? What about when there was a falling out between CEO and ministers? When a minister does not agree with a CEO and we see a falling out, what happens then? This is similar to what we have seen with the recent change in Children and Families.
Is this outcome so urgent we cannot take the time to have a plan? We rush, are in haste, but we fail to have a suitable plan in this rush. This relocation was not your plan before the election; there was no mention of such relocation. The CLP policy failed to even acknowledge this. You made the announcement to media before you told your departmental staff who would be directly affected by the move. People who work in Tourism were bewildered. They heard it through the radio - not good human resource practice.
Tourism operators have expressed their concern with the move. They have not been consulted, and my colleague went into great detail. He put the word out there and the information came flooding back to him. He has spoken about the tourism operators who raised their concerns with him; they were dismayed there was no consultation.
This conversation tonight is not about Alice Springs or Darwin; it is about the lack of planning and costing. What is the cost of this relocation? How, in these times of frontline services being cut, could we spend what I can only guess is a huge amount of money to relocate a government department? There is a huge amount of money spent, but not one more tourist attracted to the Northern Territory.
We had a conversation about what airlines are flying in and out of where. That is purely Qantas and Jetstar relocating their routes to suit their business.
There has been no financial scrutiny of this move. It costs millions of dollars and should be subject to proper accountable analysis rather than plain politics. My colleague spoke of the considerable cost associated with the move: relocation of families; rebranding; leasing of buildings; occupying buildings where leases are still current so they still have to be paid; and telecommunication set up - to name a few. However, we have seen no costing, no details. I went out of the Chamber for a moment, and the minister’s speech was over. It was certainly lacking in detail.
I also question the significant move of departmental staff without thought, consultation, or plan simply to suit a minister. What impact does this have on expertise within departments? Are we losing valuable skills and knowledge of staff? You can almost call that a brain drain. Are people leaving the Tourism department because they do not want to move to Alice Spring? Minister, you said there will be no forced moves of staff but, in these small specialist areas, are we losing talent and expertise if people do not want to move? The people I know who work within Tourism say it is a small agency. There is one media person; there is one person who works in a certain area. As we know, staff all have lives away from their work: sports, social events, not to mention partners and families who also have strong links to the community in which they live.
It is okay to apply for a job and move to an area; that is thought out. However, to put pressure on them to move is putting considerable stress on them. Families have their lives, their children in schools, they own their homes, partners are employed, and relocating is not an easy and quick option. Staff will not move. The minister named two people who had moved. Staff will not move and you will lose expertise - years of specialist experience gone. I would like to know more behind this.
The government is starting to have a flow-on effect in the public service. People are doing jobs they do not want to do. Why are they doing it? Because it is permanent; they see it as the option at a time when the public service is being slashed. People are being forced into positions as redeployees; they do not want to be there. People who want to be in those jobs are being forced out of jobs. We are losing talented, highly-skilled and dedicated people. They are losing their jobs because they are on temporary contracts. Will it be harder to recruit staff to Alice Springs? In Darwin sometimes it is hard to attract people in specialist fields. These are questions I have raised. I do not know the answers to them, but it would have been nice for the minister to answer them tonight in his speech. This snap decision was made without evaluation, so we do not know.
Since you announced this decision, Tourism staff have been stressed. They are telling us they are finding out things second-hand through the media. This is not responsible management or leadership. We must ask more questions of the member for Greatorex, as there has not been enough openness and accountability around the move. My colleague, the member for Johnston, tonight asked a number of questions, but was criticised, without any response. What positions have moved? What functions have moved? It would have been good to hear these details before a political decision forces staff to relocate.
I have the shadow responsibility for Parks and Wildlife, and I have concerns about the move of staff to Alice Springs and its impact. These concerns are probably more based on lack of information. We know our visitors come to our beautiful Territory to experience our landscapes and unique heritage. They want to explore our park estate. They want to engage with traditional owners, park rangers, tourism operators, and locals to enjoy our unique Territory. They want to truly understand our landscapes and experience our parks. What does this move and relocations of Parks and Wildlife staff mean for frontline staff? Are we seeing money in this area spent on relocation and not on the ground in our parks? What is happening with what staff? Again, transparency would have alleviated this questioning. There are just so many unknowns because the minster has made a political decision for himself and a few people without being open and accountable.
Minister, you are saying ‘Trust us, trust me’ but we would like to know more about those issues. You should be explaining in more detail. Before any political decision is made in the House we should receive a fully-costed relocation report for our consideration so we can understand the details and an informed decision can be made. Regionalisation is not about simply doing something to please a certain group. I have no problem - I have spoken of it before - of relocation of government services if they are well thought out, it will support an area, and it works best for that service. However, this relocation of the department of Tourism and some additional staff from Parks and Wildlife, from all the comments I have heard - the minister himself has said it - is a political move to repay an electorate area.
Mr TOLLNER (Health): Madam Speaker, first, congratulations to the member for Johnston for his first motion on the Notice Paper. It is a wonderful day for him and I am happy to congratulate him on the achievement of getting a motion in his name. It is unfortunate he has picked such an issue, although I understand, as he is the shadow minister for Tourism, he has to try to find some opposition to what the government is doing in relation to tourism and the move to Alice Springs.
I was surprised to hear the contribution from the member for Barkly, which I found rather stunning for a couple of reasons. The member for Barkly mentioned fossicking. This has been an issue close to my heart. For some time, I have dealt quite extensively with the Northern Territory Fossickers Association and lobbied on their behalf to try to get more rights for fossickers in the Northern Territory. There was no response from the previous government. The previous government did hardly a thing to encourage fossicking in the Northern Territory.
The member for Goyder, in the previous parliament, was then the shadow Mines and Energy minister. She did an incredible job trying to lobby government to get more rights for fossickers. I remember speaking on motions that were put by the member for Goyder to give more rights to fossickers in the Northern Territory. The member for Goyder did a fantastic job in crafting the Country Liberal Party election platform in the area of Mines and Energy, in which fossickers featured clearly.
It is surprising now that the member for Barkly would come into this place singing the praises of the fossickers and how wonderful they are for tourism when he was part of a government that did practically nothing to encourage fossicking in the Northern Territory. He jumped up today and talked about the wonderful advice fossickers get from Battery Hill about where they can go and what they can do. If he talked to the fossickers, he would understand there are very few places anywhere in the Northern Territory that fossickers can go and have a look around with their metal detectors and pans.
I pay tribute to the member for Goyder for getting the rights of fossickers into an election platform because it was something which was completely ignored by Labor when they were in government - irrespective of the loudness of the calls from fossickers and the opposition. It was pure political bloody-mindedness that stopped the government from doing anything in relation to fossickers.
That was the first thing that struck me about the member for Barkly’s speech tonight. The second thing was his seeming animosity about moving the Tourism department out of Darwin into Alice Springs.
Goodness me, I can understand, I suppose for new members such as the member for Johnston who could be considered a bit wet behind the ears and to not understand the way the economy works or what drives the Northern Territory. I can understand it somewhat that the member for Nightcliff queries these sorts of things. However, for the member for Barkly to query these things I find alarming because the wealth of the Northern Territory is generated in the regions; it is not generated in Darwin. Darwin, Katherine, Alice Springs and Tennant Creek are generally service centres for the regions. All our mining, most of our tourism, and most of our agriculture and farming takes place outside of those locations. Darwin, Palmerston, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs service those industries and, at the end of the day, if we drive development in the Northern Territory, we have to look at the regions. We have to look at the industries that drive the regions because it is, ultimately, those industries that drive jobs and employment in places like Darwin, Katherine, Alice Springs and Tennant Creek.
I am somewhat stunned that the member for Barkly could question a policy about supporting the regions and those towns that are struggling at the moment for a myriad of reasons, rather than supporting those places trying to get people to them, building some economies of scale and getting some development happening in the regions. I find that somewhat daunting.
The other thing I find strange always comes back to the Labor opposition and, in some regard, to the NT News. I read an editorial in the NT News the other day suggesting that this government did not have a mandate to get rid of the Banned Drinker Register. The reasoning of the Northern Territory News editor was, ‘Hang on, they do not have a mandate because people in Darwin did not vote for them. It was only those ones in the bush’, as if those people do not count. The only ones who count are people who live in towns and cities. I find it appalling that a newspaper and an opposition can have that feeling, particularly the member for Barkly standing up querying something like that. He is practically the sole member outside of Darwin, apart from the member for Nhulunbuy - who, by the way, has recently found a voice ...
Mr Giles: Does she know where Gove is?
Mr TOLLNER: I think she does know where Gove is. Since the Chief Minister has done a gas to Gove deal she has learnt where Gove is. She has found a voice, which is great, because for the whole of the last term we never heard a peep from the member for Nhulunbuy.
We have two members on the opposition benches who come from somewhere other than Darwin. One would have thought those two members would be screaming from the rooftops ‘Come on government, support the regions. When will you move some departmental people into our regions? When will you try to pump prime our economies rather than just focusing on Darwin?’ But, no, the member for Barkly is quite happy to support this motion from the nave member for Johnston.
As you well know, Madam Speaker, being the member for Goyder, people outside Darwin and Palmerston also have a voice, and they deserve to be heard. They are counted when it comes to elections as voters, as constituents. For some reason or other, the opposition and the NT News thinks their vote is not worth the same as someone who lives in Darwin, particularly Darwin’s northern suburbs.
I have a big soft spot for Darwin’s northern suburbs. I was the member for Solomon for six years. They are great, marvellous people; it is a great place to live in Darwin. However, the fact is Darwin only survives because of the wealth created in our regions. As parliamentarians, we need to understand this. We need to sometimes think outside the square and our own electorates. When we wonder what is best for our electorate, sometimes it is trying to help do some good for someone in their electorate. Ultimately, it all comes back to Darwin.
I have tourism operators all through my electorate. I have award winning tourism operators in my electorate. But not one of those tourism operators is a tourism experience provider in Darwin city. People come to the Northern Territory to see the great outdoors. They go to Kakadu and Litchfield. The Europeans like to go to remote communities. They want to go fishing. Very few people visit Darwin to go to the movies. There are some wonderful attractions in Darwin such as Crocosaurus Cove, Crocodylus Park and a range of other fantastic experiences, but the vast majority of our tourism occurs in the regions. We need to recognise that and strengthen our regions.
At the moment, Alice Springs is somewhat a town in crisis because of the neglect and disregard the former government had for it. Crime is still a long way from being under control. A large proportion of Alice Springs is supported by government. If we can have something in Alice Springs which primes private enterprise, gives a surge to that entrepreneurial spirit people have, the better for the regions. The more we can do in our regions the better it is for all of us.
Madam Speaker, congratulations on your time in opposition as the shadow Mines and Energy spokesperson. You had a real understanding of the mining industry and of what role fossickers play in our region and what it can do to our tourism industry. You lobbied on their behalf, and that deserves congratulations. That should be congratulated by every member, not just those in regional areas but also the people who live in Darwin. Ultimately, fossickers also require services which are provided out of Darwin.
This motion is rather detestable. I can understand the member for Johnston may have it wrong; he is a new member. We have to give some leeway to new members with these types of motions. He is still a bit wet behind the ears when it comes to understanding clearly how the world works. However, there is no excuse for the member for Barkly.
The former minister lives in the region and should be applauding these decisions. It is very difficult, in opposition, to applaud a government decision, but to say nothing would have been much smarter than caning the government for moving Tourism to Alice Springs and ranting about the lack of fossickers in Tennant Creek. Goodness me! That is hypocrisy because you had more than 10 long years. We had 11 long years of hard Labor in the Northern Territory. Now they carry on about the lack of fossicking in the regions when they had 11 years to do something ...
Mr McCarthy: It is starting now.
Mr TOLLNER: We are hearing now that they started. I hear this all the time in this House. Members of the opposition say it was their idea. Good on you, you had a wonderful idea, but did you put anything into practice? No, absolutely not. You had many great ideas, and everything is easy in hindsight, but you did practically nothing for tourism in the Territory. It has gone backwards and we are spending a bomb on it. We have a new Tourism minister who has seized the opportunity with both hands and is spruiking the Northern Territory, talking the place up. He is already getting results. Tourism is to move to Alice Springs.
Madam Speaker, I would love everything to be in my electorate, but I understand my electorate survives on the rest of the Northern Territory, so I am happy to see a positive move like this. It will be positive for Alice Springs, it will be positive for the regions, and it shows this government’s commitment to developing the regions, which has to be a good thing for all of us.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I offer my criticism of this motion. First, the government does not list all the changes it may implement during its term in government as part of its election commitments. Many changes come up during a term of government. An example I draw on is the carbon tax. That is a good example, but, sorry, that was an election promise from the Prime Minister, and what did they do with that? They just swapped it around and implemented it. I can remember those words, ‘I will never introduce a carbon tax’.
I also raise whether the Henderson government let Tourism know it was to remove funding from Katherine and Tennant Creek Tourism Associations when it did? No, it did not, because it knew people would be upset that tourism in their towns was being put behind the pork barrelling of the savings from that being used for opening the Offices of the Chief Minister. I was a bit peeved by that because I was the Chairman of the Tourism Association at the time and I know Katherine suffered as a result.
I have just lost that ...
Mr McCarthy: When did we have an Office of the Chief Minister in Tennant Creek?
Mr HIGGINS: We had one in Katherine.
Mr McCarthy: You were talking about Tennant Creek.
Mr HIGGINS: I said the savings in Tennant Creek ...
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr HIGGINS: Madam Speaker, I have had 15 years’ experience in tourism, more than the member for Johnston who, from his speech, sees a school holiday as tourism experience. My experiences are with a number of small tourism businesses that rely on the caravan side of the industry which, surely, give the bread and butter to the key hub of our economy. More people come through Alice Springs on their road trip than Darwin, rather than turning left into Western Australia or right into Queensland.
I see this decision as one that recognises the Centre as a key attraction to our domestic tourists. It is not anti-Darwin, just pro-Territory. It is a recognition that our attractions are not in Darwin, but in the regions. Sydney has the harbour and the Blue Mountains, not just Hay and Griffith out west; they have nothing. That is possibly why we have some of these centres in the capital cities we talked about. The head of tourism in New South Wales is in Sydney, but all of the major centres across New South Wales have large tourism associations and tourism development ...
Mr Vatskalis: Run by local government.
Mr HIGGINS: Hey?
Mr Vowles: We used to have that until you changed it.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr HIGGINS: Does the member for Johnston think we are driven by others, or that we are self-determining in the Territory? By that I mean will we copy these other states? No, sorry, there it is again; they are driven by Canberra and the Prime Minister. Those on the other side are not allowed to make decisions, they need their masters in Canberra to pick their candidates.
Central Australia is integral to tourism, and to have our tourism headquarters close to this hub is a decision which has been successful and will reap some benefits, hopefully, immediately. It is something more than the nothing that was done by Labor over the last 10 years. I note there was no mention of the re-establishment of the Tourism department as a commission. That gives the tourism industry a direct input into tourism. Remember, the Labor change was to scrap the commission, next close the tourism offices across the Territory, then move the Tourism staff and CEO to a sub-office of a bigger department, the name of which was so big I cannot remember it.
The motion talked about relocation. I ask what Labor did with the staff employed by the tourism associations in the regional centres of Katherine and Tennant Creek? ‘Sacked them’, they said. ‘Not our worry, you are industry members, you employed them as ambassadors of your industry, so your problem’. Sorry, this government sees the industry as a key input to the economy
I give another example of the government’s waste in tourism which resulted from its lack of foresight. A new information bay was built at Daly River which was compensation for the closing of the Katherine Tourism Association. It was built at a cost of about $0.5m. This bay is 90 km off the highway and there is no town, no crossroads on the way to it. It is a pity if you have no idea what facilities the Daly has. You have no idea what is there until you get to this bay.
It gets worse. In the three years since that bay was built for $0.5m, there has been no information in the bay. Tourism operators did not want it because they wanted information available in Katherine. People pass through Alice Springs to Katherine and get their information there, not when they get to the destination.
This also reminds me of the signage policy in regard to tourism. Ten years, yet we have not seen a draft. Before the opposition criticises this idea, it should look in its own back yard. Get an idea of what you talk about before you criticise.
I also question the member for Nightcliff’s comments that this is a motion more about the public sector as opposed to tourism. It is about tourism because tourism is small business and, without income generated by small business, there would be no money to pay public servants. I prefer the title, ‘public service’. Yes, that is service and this move is to service tourism.
Madam Speaker, in closing, this decision is more visionary than those made by Labor.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I thank all the members who spent time on this motion on the important topic of tourism. I applaud everybody for their comments.
I was a little disappointed with the minister for Tourism, the member for Greatorex, and his seven-minute speech replying to this motion.
I am still waiting for the costings. He ranted and raved a bit but did not give me the answers I was asking for, which were simply to the questions the tourism operators, who are contacting me every day, every week, are asking. ‘What will this cost and why the move to Alice Springs?’ I am happy to take those costings on board, at some stage, if they come in. They should turn up before estimates because the office in Alice Springs will be open and running by then. It is such an important industry we need to get this right.
I will give the member for Greatorex credit where credit is due. If more people come to the Territory, that is what we want. We want to see more people visit this beautiful place we call the Territory, stay here as long as they can and spend their money. That is what we are all about. I will give credit to the member for Greatorex, the minister for Tourism, if more people come here. I will not be an opposition spokesman who will criticise, criticise, criticise.
I am simply bringing to the table that this decision to move the tourism headquarters to Alice Springs was made without consultation. As the shadow minister for Tourism, it is my important role that I voice the concerns of Territorians. I will give credit to the member for Greatorex, the minister for Tourism, if more people come to the Northern Territory. I have no problem doing that.
I thank the member for Barkly who was very informative. The member for Barkly and I spoke at length about tourism in Tennant Creek. We had a good chat about fossicking. Fossickers are called ‘prospectors’ in the Northern Territory. We are the only place in Australia they are called that. It is an important issue.
I reiterate that we might have done things wrong, we might have done things right, but we need to explore any opportunity that will bring dollars to the Northern Territory in tourism, whether that means the fossickers, the caravan parks, or highlighting a certain destination. This Territory is big and beautiful. I love it and everybody who comes here will love it.
The member for Araluen was a bit grumpy. That is all right. I love the theatrics of the member for Araluen. Unfortunately, it turned it into an Alice Springs and Darwin-centric issue. That is not what I am about. I lived in Alice Springs for a long time; I love the place. This is simply me relaying the questions which have been asked of me about why this move to Alice Springs has been made, how much it will cost, and why? Is it politics? Is it research? Is it the costing? It is all these things, and she missed the point about that. I am simply asking, why did this have to happen? As I said, I will give every credit I can if more people come to Alice Springs and the Territory.
I did enjoy the member for Araluen’s speech, but not as much as the member for Fong Lim’s or Braitling’s. The fact that she spoke three times longer than the Tourism minister was some credit to her.
I thank my colleague, the member for Nightcliff, who raised many questions that have not been answered tonight. That is what I want to keep going. The bungling of Tourism and the announcements were something we all cringed over. To hear that your job may be moved to Alice Springs if you are in Tourism or Parks is not the right way to do things. I am sure this new government will give some leeway, as the member for Fong Lim gave me some leeway about my first motion in the House. I thank him for that. We will give some leeway, you are a new government. We hope and expect you will get the processes right and start treating the public servants with the respect they deserve.
Member for Daly, thank you very much. I respect the member for Daly for his role and experience in Katherine tourism. Many years ago, I heard about his knowledge and experience in that role, and I applaud him for his efforts. I applaud anyone who has the knowledge and experience to bring extra dollars into this Territory. For the member for Daly, I have travelled around the world but my school holidays were only to Batchelor, and I loved it. I thank you for your contribution.
The member for Fong Lim - what a bloke. He knows your first motion can be a little dodgy; people are going for you. You are not on my side, but I am glad you are over there. There is a mutual respect and you brought up some good points. The fossicking idea is something that needs to be investigated and, I am sure, worked on because, as I keep saying, anything that brings extra dollars into this town and this Territory is a good thing. It is worth something like $3m, or millions more dollars in the tourism industry. They keep coming. I met with some fossicking people over the last week and they were very passionate. It makes a lot of sense why we should do that. This new government needs to explore that.
In wrapping up, I am not against regionalisation. I wanted to voice the concerns of the tourism operators, the Tourism staff and concerned Territorians who contacted me about why the government is doing this. The industry was not consulted. They need to be consulted in such an important industry which is worth $1.4bn to the Territory economy. As the shadow minister for Tourism, I will ensure I hold the minister to account, which is my role - as he did, as a shadow for many years. I welcome that and I hope, at some stage, we can work together and bring the Territory forward in tourism.
I look forward to the costings. I hope I do not have to wait for estimates. I will give credit where credit is due and, if more people come to the Territory, I will respect and applaud it. Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to bring this motion to the House.
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Establishment of New Bulk-billing Super Clinic
Establishment of New Bulk-billing Super Clinic
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, I move that the House:
(a) supports the establishment of a new bulk-billing super clinic in the northern suburbs at the location already earmarked for the clinic, and
The federal government has tried many times to attract GPs to remote areas with incentives but it looks like most people prefer to stay in the large urban centres because of family, they grew up there, or they can make more money there.
We have a significantly smaller number of GPs in the Northern Territory. When you cannot access a GP when something goes wrong and you have to wait a day or two, sometimes three, you try to find somebody to address the issue at the emergency department, even for the simplest ailment. The result is we have seen a significant increase in the numbers of people going to the emergency departments at our hospitals, mainly at Royal Darwin Hospital. Recently, we found from the release of a federal government report that waiting numbers for the emergency department are increasing.
Many times in this parliament I was questioned by the opposition spokesman and said the numbers at the emergency department at Royal Darwin Hospital continually increased. We are able to meet the time lines for people with an urgent issue 100%; for example, a heart attack. However, the department is clogged by people who should not be there who have ailments which could be treated by a GP in a private practice.
Of course, every time we say that people probably laugh at us because they say, ‘When my child is sick at night and I want someone to look at him and there are no doctors, I will go to the emergency department’. The same people the next day will complain about emergency departments.
We tried to address this issue in various ways but could not do it successfully until we were lucky enough to have a proposal, in 2009, by the Commonwealth Department of Health. The Health Department in the Northern Territory signed an agreement with the Commonwealth for the establishment of the first super clinic in Palmerston. At the time, I was very sceptical of how successful it would be but am pleased to admit I was wrong to be sceptical.
The Northern Territory government Department of Health was responsible for the design, construction and commissioning of the facility in Palmerston and undertook to source a third party to operate the facility. It would not be operated by the Department of Health - we wanted somebody else to do it. The Flinders University and Charles Darwin University formed a not-for-profit company, FCD Health, and submitted a tender for it and started running Palmerston Super Clinic. The Australian Medical Association was initially against the facility for their own reasons, but afterwards changed their mind and I explained why.
We had in place a fundamental principle for the operation of the GP super clinic in Palmerston. We wanted the super clinic to provide a high-quality comprehensive, integrated, and patient-centred primary health service to the Palmerston community. We wanted to recruit, train and retain a clinical workforce.
One of the big problems with the lack of GPs in Australia is the fact that in 2000, under the Howard government, the current Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, reduced the number of graduates from medical schools in universities. That created a huge deficit of doctors graduating from universities and being trained in our hospitals. As a matter of fact, in remote areas, the majority of doctors are overseas trained. They settle in Australia, they train in Australian hospitals, and they stay in remote areas. Some of our very good doctors in the Territory were born and trained overseas and have moved to Australia.
We now know the super clinic in Palmerston is very good. In the first three months of its operation, the super clinic saw 3705 patients and the services were provided mainly by local general practitioners. They had only about one-and-a-half full-time equivalent positions of practitioner registrar, with one nurse, and a small group of practice support staff.
Today, the super clinic in Palmerston has about 10 general practitioners, four nurses, allied health professionals, and medical students supported by eight practice support staff. The number of people has grown significantly. From the beginning of 2012 until the end of September 2012, they had seen about 26 500 people. I have been advised by the end of 2012 they had seen 33 833 people - and that was only through the general practitioner. If you included people seen by allied health, it was in total 36 000 in the super clinic in Palmerston.
The AMA, which initially opposed the super clinic in Palmerston, supports the super clinic now because that super clinic started training doctors from the medical school in Charles Darwin University and from Royal Darwin Hospital. The model of the super clinic in Palmerston was a good model, and is now considered by the Commonwealth as one of the best super clinics in Australia.
I come now to the northern suburbs super clinic. The one in Palmerston seems to work very well and has seen 36 000 people in one year of operation, a significant load off general practitioners in Darwin. We have some private practitioners in clinics operating like the ones in Nightcliff and Casuarina, but what we really need is a bigger number of practitioner GPs in Darwin. We do not have that. The demand continues to increase as the population of Darwin has increased. We have a young population and the demand is there.
To give an example, some of the doctors who are my friends opened the clinic in Casuarina, the Top End Practice. They advised me they see 400 people a day accessing the Casuarina practise in Vanderlin Drive. The demand is so big that, from originally seven doctors they have gone to 10; they brought in specialist paediatric doctors; and they have expanded their time of operation from five days a week to seven days a week and public holidays. They provide a bulk-billing service. Because they are very close to my electorate office at Casuarina I go to this practice sometimes. I was prepared to pay but I was bulk-billed like every other person in that area. Because of the significant demand and the example they have set with bulk-billing, I believe another general practice in Casuarina Shopping Square has now moved from charging people who then have to go to Medicare to receive the payment, to bulk-billing patients. The practice is in high demand.
At the same time, many people - especially people with young children - find it quite difficult to access the clinics, not only because of the lack of the GPs but because of the cost. Every time I have been to a doctor I have been charged $85 and received $36 back from Medicare. That is okay for me; I can afford it. However, when you have a family with young children, definitely they cost because if one gets sick all of them will be sick. So, you have to go to the clinic and you finish up with significant cost.
That was the reason why, when the opportunity was given by the federal government to have another super clinic like the one in Palmerston, we jumped at the opportunity. Together with the federal government, we called for an expression of interest by general practitioners in Darwin to establish a northern suburbs super clinic. Unfortunately, we did not receive any expression of interest from any GPs for various reasons.
We discussed the issue with GPs. The argument they made was the reporting mechanism put in place by the federal government was so onerous they were not prepared to do it. Another reason we received was because super clinic bulk-billing would not make any money for the people to operate. Again, that was a requirement of the federal government, member for Fong Lim, it had nothing to do with the Territory government. You will find exactly the same problems if you continue down that path and establish a general practice.
We were in danger of losing $5m put on the table by the then minister, Nicola Roxon, for a super clinic in the northern suburbs. I took a trip to Melbourne and persuaded the minister that I was prepared to work with the federal government to find a provider, as long as the $5m remained in Darwin. I have this commitment from the federal minister and it remains on the table following the change of ministers in the portfolio. The new minister, Tanya Plibersek, confirmed the decision that the $5m will be on the table for the Northern Territory.
We were approached by a private provider who is experienced in super clinics. That provider established one in Queensland and one in South Australia. He has a very good business model which he presented to us, and we realised that business model will operate in the Territory. Also, this business model was working very well in Queensland and in South Australia. In Queensland, the government had provided him a site near a public hospital and, in South Australia, the government had also assisted in the establishment of a super clinic. Obviously, these governments believed the super clinic was a good thing for the people and were prepared to assist.
In the Territory, apart from the $5m on the table, we decided to provide the operator with a site near Sanderson Middle School to establish a super clinic in an area which is very important. It is a middle class to low socioeconomic area with young families who will need access to a clinic, and is far away from the hospitals. If we provided land near the hospital and he established a super clinic there, most people would bypass the super clinic and head straight for the emergency department. We want to stop people accessing the emergency department except if it is a serious incident, and to access the super clinic instead.
The minister, Tanya Plibersek, still maintains interest in the establishment of a super clinic in Darwin. She knows well the previous government has provided land which has been rezoned. I also understand in a recent meeting with the current minister, the member for Fong Lim, she asked questions about the super clinic and the minister told her he would get back to her later to discuss it with her.
I urge the minister to proceed with the establishment of the super clinic. I know that some people in his party are ideologically opposed to the super clinic, but I urge him to have a very good look at the super clinic in Palmerston, how it operates, and what services it provides in the area. From November to now, the super clinic in Palmerston has extended its hours of operation from 8 am to 10 pm. It also intends to provide a pharmacy from the first half of 2013 and develop a centre of medical excellence in Palmerston. This could happen in exactly the same way in the northern suburbs of Darwin.
I have some concerns about the commitment of the Country Liberal Party to the super clinic in the northern suburbs. What we have seen in the past few months does not encourage me that this will happen. The fact that in the mini-budget the minister was very quick to get rid of the medi-hotel is something he will pay for because, as we have seen in the past few days, the bed block at RDH forces people to stay longer in the beds in the ED, or they are discharged when they should not be for the simple reason that many beds in Royal Darwin Hospital are occupied by people who are not well enough to go home but are not sick enough to be in hospital. In some cases, they are occupied by people who should be in a nursing home but, because there are no beds available, these people occupy valuable beds in wards. These people could be housed in a medi-hotel. I heard the statement that the Health Department should not become a hotelier. We do not argue with that.
We have a medi-hotel called Barbara James House that provides services to people who come here from remote areas or other towns for cancer treatment in the Territory. Barbara James House is operated by an NGO. People pay from their travel assistance money and there is no extra charge to them. The same model could be used at a medi-hotel in Darwin. After all, RDH is the biggest hospital in the Territory and many people from the regions have to come to RDH for treatment. It is crazy having people occupying beds that can be provided to people who really need them. These people could be moved out of the Royal Darwin Hospital wards to the medi-hotel for the time required to be completely treated.
I was also very disappointed that the current government did not grab the opportunity for the money provided by the federal government for a new mothers’ and children’s ward, a stand-alone ward that not only would provide a new facility for children and mothers, but would actually relieve the pressure on the Royal Darwin Hospital. Scoping and preliminary planning had been done. People were very enthusiastic and Dr Bauert was ecstatic that we would have a brand new ward.
The minister knows, because I believe he has been to the Royal Darwin Hospital, that the current children’s ward has passed its use-by date and needs to be completely refurbished and redone. The reality is, no matter how much money you spend, you would not have a state-of-the-art mothers’ and children’s ward, you would have to start from scratch and do something else with that area. The Royal Darwin Hospital has the only children’s ward where the kids are locked in an air-conditioned environment on the fifth floor, 24 hours a day. In other hospitals around Australia, yes, the children stay in their beds when they have to, but when they do not, they have access to a playground and an outside environment.
The other thing that concerns me is the CLP has not made any noises about the Palmerston Hospital, for their own reasons. This hospital was designed and about to be developed in consultation with the council, the community, service providers, doctors and nurses, with money from the federal government. It would relieve the pressure on the Royal Darwin Hospital.
Minister, these are decisions you have to make. Being a Health Minister is not the best job in Cabinet. I used to call it a poisoned chalice and you will share my concerns about it.
You were probably given the job to keep you away from leadership aspirations you may have because, when you are occupied with the business of health, that keeps you too busy to start thinking about plotting how to topple the Chief Minister. The first one failed, now we are waiting for the next two contestants to see who will be the winner by Easter. I do not know if it will be Catholic Easter or Greek Easter, but I am waiting for it.
I told you before, there is an opportunity to make a difference in the Territory. There is an opportunity to provide the services for Territorians; services that are not there today. I urge you to consider the offer by the federal government. I urge you to talk to the provider. I do not know if you have been approached by the provider yet, but if you have not, I am quite happy to provide you all the information I have. I hope you will persuade your colleagues in Cabinet that you will be able to work with the federal government in order to establish the super clinic in the northern suburbs.
It is not something that is good to have; it is something we have to have. It is something the community demands and needs. We have seen the pressure put on the current operators. Take a trip to the Nightcliff clinic one day. Walk in and you will find the number of people waiting to be seen by doctors. Go to the Vanderlin Drive Medical Centre in Casuarina and you will find out how many people are waiting to be seen by a doctor. You will realise how much demand there is for a super clinic.
Madam Speaker, our government secured the $5m funding to remain in Darwin. Our government found and rezoned an area as a property for a super clinic. Our government had the initial negotiations with the service provider. It is up to the minister to now make the decision to establish the super clinic in the northern suburbs.
Mr TOLLNER (Health): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Casuarina for bringing this on. I am thankful for the member for Casuarina for truncating his comments. I am cognisant of the fact that we have another 15 minutes of General Business Day left and I welcome the opportunity to respond to the member for Casuarina.
Member for Casuarina, I am thrilled that you have brought this motion on. I have been dead keen to talk about your planned super clinic at Sanderson school for a long time, it is just that the opportunity has not presented itself. I am grateful you have brought it on now.
The Sanderson super clinic proposed by the former government was a sweetheart deal the former government cooked up with their federal colleagues. The member for Casuarina and comrade Plibersek clearly worked out what they wanted and put it out in the electorate. There was no consultation with the Department of Health.
On taking the Health ministry portfolio, I was given a list of briefing notes on various agencies and services the department provides, but there was nothing at all on the Sanderson super clinic. When I queried the department why they did not present me with that information, they told me they did not have that information; that a deal was done within the minister’s office and the Department of Health was not aware of what those negotiations were.
Second, there was no consultation, oddly enough, with the school itself. The school council, I am well informed by the member for Sanderson, was not aware of the government’s plans for a super clinic on school grounds. One would think if you excise a chunk of land off a school you would talk to the school council. The school council was not aware. Quite clearly, the Principal of Sanderson Middle School was aware. After all, she was the Labor candidate so she was let in on the deal. However, the school council was not.
There was no community consultation. It was quite interesting we had a motion a little while ago from the member for Johnston about the move of Tourism NT from Darwin to Alice Springs and a number of members on the other side said, ‘What about the consultation?’ Oddly enough, when it came to putting a super clinic on school grounds the community that school serves was not consulted. It is interesting the way these guys do business. You would think what is good for the goose is good for the gander, but not necessarily the case with our lefty comrades opposite. The fact is, practically no one was consulted. Comrade Plibersek, Comrade Green and Comrade Vatskalis did an in-house job and came up with this wonderful plan for a super clinic on the grounds of Sanderson Middle School.
I am well informed by the member for Sanderson that the school wants that land and is opposed to handing it over to another organisation because they are very keen on things like experiential learning, which the member for Sanderson informed me is a big factor at Sanderson Middle School. They want to teach kids skill-based training for those students who do not want to go on to university and need to learn skills that will prepare them for a life after school. Areas of irrigation, horticulture, growing things - a whole range of outdoor activities that are good learning opportunities for youth would have been taken away from them had this super clinic gone ahead.
The member for Casuarina said, ‘We found this block of land’. Why did he not recommend that organisation go off to Malak Shopping Centre, which seems to have more room, or Karama Shopping Centre? Fundamentally, it is because, member for Casuarina - and you and I know - that organisation wanted the land thrown in. The big sweetener from the Territory government is they would find them a block of land. The block of land had to be somewhere in the northern suburbs. What was easier than the school where the candidate was the principal - nice and easy deal, cut and dried, no dramas there.
However, in actual fact, you are dead right; the $5m is still on the table. I spoke with minister Plibersek two weeks ago in Canberra. She queried me on what was happening with it. I said I did not realise you guys were fair dinkum. I thought this was a bit of a joke in order to get the comrades in the Northern Territory, in particular, the Labor candidate in Sanderson, over the line. She said, ‘Oh, no, no, no. The $5m is still on the table if you want to use it’. Member for Casuarina, I tell you I am interested in that offer and we are investigating locations where we might be able to place that super clinic. Clearly, the feedback we got from that community is they do not want it at the Sanderson school, so we have to find another location.
This takes me to some comments the member made in relation to the Palmerston Super Clinic. He said it is a roaring success. I suppose it has to be, doesn’t it? They were given considerable amounts of money from the Commonwealth to seed and start that business. The Northern Territory government contributed the land and the building site, of course, and the Territory government also pays around $1m a year - a $1m a year - for the free after-hours service that is provided at that location.
On top of that, the Health Department also provides the Executive Officer to the Palmerston Super Clinic. Robyn Cahill is doing a great job there. It is interesting to note that super clinic was very much struggling to keep its doors open until the department lent that organisation Robyn Cahill to provide the management services. Robyn Cahill, I am very glad to say, has turned it around and made it a going concern. It will be interesting to see how that clinic would operate without the $1m that comes for the free after-hours service or without the services of Robyn Cahill.
The member for Casuarina, in his statement, said there is this wonderful stuff going on at the bulk-billing clinic at Vanderlin Drive. Did the Commonwealth government provide that clinic $5m? Did the government provide them free accommodation? Did the government provide them with an executive officer? The answer on all of those things is no. No, it did not; those people set up their business as true entrepreneurs without any government support.
There are other things in the Casuarina area the member for Casuarina is aware of. There is the skin cancer clinic, the day surgery, and the pharmacy. Government did not provide any support to those organisations whatsoever. In fact, they did what any other business does; they went and leased or bought their premises, they employed their staff out of money they saved or borrowed, and they did it on their own. In fact, a number of them said they did it despite the previous government.
I found it quite amazing to come into this job as Health Minister because, for a long time now, we have all recognised the need for private practitioners in the Northern Territory. I used to scratch my head, as we would complain about the health system and the minister would say, ‘Hang on, hang on. We are doing enormous amounts in the Northern Territory government. We are doing this service and we are doing that service. The big problem, of course, in the Northern Territory, is we do not have any private providers as in the other states. How do we attract them here?’
I started thinking how we attract them here. Then, I got this job and, before I knew it, my door was almost beaten down by private providers coming into my office wanting to know if they will be allowed to set up. I said, ‘Okay, what are you looking for? Do you need a grant? Do you need something’? ‘No, no, we just want approval’. I said, ‘I beg your pardon?’ They said, ‘No, no, we just want approval’. I have people who want to set up day surgeries and bulk-billing practices in Palmerston.
But, no, here we are in government, talking about providing a free $5m grant and land and, before we know it, we will be giving them a $1m ongoing to provide a free after-hours service plus an executive officer. This is how the previous government operated. These guys in Casuarina who are in the member for Casuarina’s electorate, go out on their own bat, set these things up despite government and are doing a fantastic job. The bulk-billing centre in Casuarina is seeing some 60 000 people a year. That is an incredible number. That takes an enormous load off the hospital and the emergency department.
Similarly, at the day surgery, they tell me they are doing 20 surgeries a day in that little building. Did they get any help from government? Did they get any assistance? No. The government put hurdles in front of them all the way through, but they persevered and they managed. They overcame the previous government’s objections. They have set up and are now doing 20 surgeries a day.
I am amazed at the number of people coming to see me. Only yesterday, I saw a couple of gastroenterologists wanting to know whether they might be able to set up in Casuarina as well. They want consulting rooms. I said, ‘Okay. What is it that you need to sweeten the deal?’ or something like that. ‘No, we just want to know whether we would have the support of government to do it’. I said, ‘Of course. Absolutely, of course. We would love you to set up a service here in Casuarina’. I have to scratch my head and wonder. How do I justify to the people who run the bulk-billing centre, the skin cancer clinic, the day surgery, and the pharmacy, handing over $5m to competition and giving them a free block of land?
I spoke to the people who are the proponents of the super clinic. I said, ‘There are plenty of places you can go. There is a heap of space at Malak Shopping Centre. There is a heap of space at the airport. Ian Kew at the airport is desperate to rent some of that space’. But, no, that is not what they are about. They want the land thrown in by the NT government. I will investigate some ways to do that if we can have a good extra super clinic that works and does not compromise the government with other people in private practice. I am dead keen to look at it. I am doing everything I can to investigate land availability in the area where we might be able to come to some arrangement with the proponents of that super clinic.
It is difficult, member for Casuarina. That is why, you found that enormous resistance when you proposed the super clinic at Palmerston. You encountered that resistance from the AMA. The AMA was saying it is very difficult to set this up. First, you are giving these guys a free leg up, a free hand. Second, you are taking practitioners away from existing businesses in that area. That was their concern.
The Palmerston super clinic is operating and is doing a wonderful job at the moment, but let us not gild the lily. It is costing the Territory taxpayer a $1m a year, the land availability, and the executive officer whose time runs out sometime in the middle of this year. It will be interesting to see whether that super clinic can continue to operate without her services and whether they can step up to the plate and take on the free after-hours service which they are committed to. They keep telling me, ‘We are trying, we are getting there, but we are not quite there yet’. I know there are many doctors out there. There are many specialists, there are many surgeons; a whole range of people in medical practice who are dead keen to set up ...
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired and GBD has finished. Do you wish to adjourn to a later time?
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, can I take an extra five minutes and finish my comments. Is that appropriate?
Ms LAWRIE: Speaking to that request, Madam Speaker. My understanding of the GBD arrangements that have existed for a long time is there is provision under standing orders to take a five-minute extension to finish your remarks.
Madam SPEAKER: Okay, five minute extension, minister.
Ms LAWRIE: On the agreement of both sides, I think that is.
Mr Elferink: No, I thought it was 10.
Ms LAWRIE: We can check, but I know it is at least five. If he wants to take 10 ...
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, I am happy with five or 10. I appreciate the fact that the member for Casuarina truncated his remarks so I could speak, so I will not abuse that privilege. I am thankful I have had the opportunity to put the government’s side of the super clinic story out there.
I am keen to work with the federal government to see whether we can actually do something to establish a super clinic in the northern suburbs but, at the same time, I am not interested in corrupting the private practices out there with government handouts and subsidies and the like.
The government will not be supporting this motion simply because the idea of the former government’s of putting a super clinic at a school without any consultation with the school council or the community and most importantly, with the Department of Health, flies in the face of reason, particularly when they are talking about the amount of money they are, and when there are so many doctors and surgeons and the like keen to set up in the Northern Territory. I am very hopeful that in the next couple of years we will see many more practices opening up and taking the burden off our hospitals and public health services right across the board because. The fact of the matter is, we need them in the Northern Territory. Many people have private medical cover in the Northern Territory and they look forward to having choice in a system.
Madam Speaker, I am doing everything I can to encourage private investment in this area and will continue to do so because, only through expanding our entire health services will we have a health system that services everyone.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Madam Speaker, I pay my respects to Richard Johnston Wallace, otherwise known as Dick Wallace, a soon to be retired stipendiary magistrate in the Northern Territory.
He has rendered the Northern Territory years of faithful service and, as the Attorney-General of the Northern Territory, I cannot forebear but to come into this House and pay my tribute to him and thank him for his many years of service. Mr Richard Johnston Wallace, Stipendiary Magistrate, will retire on 14 April 2013. Mr Wallace is currently on long service leave and will be retiring on that date.
Mr Wallace was educated at Prince Alfred College, Adelaide, and matriculated in 1969, being ranked first in the South Australian General Honours List for Modern History. Mr Wallace graduated from the University of Adelaide with seven prizes for academic excellence and gained first class honours, Bachelor of Laws Degree and a Bachelor of Arts Degree majoring in Economics and Politics. After working as a tutor at the University of Adelaide, Mr Wallace took up a two-year scholarship at Magdalene College, Oxford, where he gained a Bachelor of Civil Laws Degree. He arrived in Darwin in the early 1980s and for two years was associate to Sir William Forster, the then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory.
In 1982 he was an articled clerk to Mr Pat Loftus, of the firm Loftus and Cameron, having been admitted to the practice as a legal practitioner in August 1982. In October 1983, Mr Wallace joined the Prosecutions Section of the then Department of Law, which later became the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and remained there for 10 years. During that time he appeared for the prosecution in the Magistrates Court throughout the Northern Territory and did many Supreme Court trials and appeared regularly before the Court of Appeal and Court of Criminal Appeal. His most publicised trial was the joint murder trial of the Crown against Heiss and Camm. Mr Wallace was a member of the Attorney-General’s Criminal Code Review Committee; he took up a position of relieving magistrate on 6 December 1993, and permanent magistrate on 27 October 1995. After 16 years in Darwin, Mr Wallace was the Katherine magistrate during 2012.
Mr Wallace will retire, as I said, on 14 April 2013. I place on record my personal gratitude, as well as the gratitude of the people of the Northern Territory in this House, so it is a permanent record of our gratitude. He should be appropriately acknowledged in that fashion.
I also wanted to thank - it is probably a little dated now, it came in November last year, but it is worth mentioning - a letter from Ms June Noble, part of the official visitors program, and it reads:
- Dear Mr Elferink,
I made an official visit to the Alice Springs Correctional Centre on Friday, 2 November. Eleven prisoners had requested an interview with me, all queries were of a minor nature and will be addressed by senior staff and welfare officers.
Superintendent Bill Carroll explained the exciting new project on the drawing board for Ali Curung. a prison farm in partnership with Centrefarm which will eventually employ up to 20 or more prisoners. What an excellent initiative.
Chief Prison Officer Pomery escorted me to the Industries Department where I was impressed by the expansion in all sections, bigger laundry, and more projects in metalwork and carpentry and a demanding prison maintenance program. The Textile Industries are now producing a great variety of products, samples of which are on a display board, e.g. large drawstring bags for each member of the town work parties to store their boots and tools. This section employs 20 female inmates daily. The two prison officers in charge of Textile Industries are to be congratulated for their ideas and commitment to a program producing such positive results for all concerned.
I place on the record my thanks to Ms June Noble for her kind words. However, the congratulations should not be aimed at me, but rather Superintendent Bill Carroll and Chief Prison Officer Pomery. Can I say to all prison officers who work in the Alice Springs Correctional facility, I find it extremely heartening that we get such positive feedback, particularly under the difficult circumstances we find ourselves with our substantial prison population. I have to thank the Prison Officer’s Association and the prison officers generally, particularly in this case in the Alice Springs environment, because of the excellent work they do.
As Correctional Services minister, I talk about the Department of Correctional Services being honoured with a prestigious defence award. The Correctional Services Commissioner, Ken Middlebrook, accepted a few days ago the 2012 Northern Territory Defence Reserve Support Employer of the Year Award at a function at the Larrakeyah Officer’s Mess. Speaking on behalf of the department, Mr Middlebrook said the award was a great honour. He was quoted as saying to be acknowledged with this award as a supportive employee of staff who are members of the Defence Reserves is a source of pride for the department. These men and women give their time voluntarily to the defence of Australia and its national interests with many having served on operations overseas. Equally important, from an employer’s perspective, they bring back to their civilian work environments valuable knowledge and skills from their military training that only serves to enhance their careers.
I congratulate Mr Middlebrook on maintaining the reserves policy inside the prison system. Mr Middlebook said the department viewed releasing staff for military training and operational services as part of its own contribution to national security. He is quoted as saying if we ever can make it easier for individuals to join training as defence reservists we fulfil a valuable contribution to the nation as a whole. The department was nominated for the award by Prison Officer Robyn Drake, a leading aircraft woman in the Air Force Reserve.
I am very proud of the work being done and congratulate Commissioner Middlebrook on his efforts and work in this area. I congratulate the prison officers who have participated in the defence of our nation. We are proud of them, I am proud of them, and it demonstrates the level of commitment we see in the people who work in the very difficult environment of our custodial services. My congratulations and support to them all.
Mr KURRUPUWU (Arafura): Madam Speaker, tonight I wish to talk about something very close to my heart - education.
I was very proud and happy to attend the student’s graduation ceremony at Gunbalunya on 21 January this year, not only as a local member but also as a former teacher.
This graduation had very special significance as, for the first time in the history of school at Gunbalunya, two students graduated from Year 12. Not only did they graduate Year 12, but they set themselves as role models for others to follow. They were able to show if you have the will and drive to succeed, then anything is possible. These two proud young men are James Marrday and Robert Balmana.
It was a joy to see these two stand before a crowd of several hundred community members, which included other students, community elders, teachers, and senior executives from various government departments, and deliver their graduation speeches. They spoke about the journey through education and what got them to where they are today. They spoke about distraction along the way and how they got past it. They spoke about the support of their family and what that meant to them.
Both these fine young men went to the Clontarf Academy that has been running at Gunbalunya over the past few years in conjunction with West Arnhem College. I cannot speak highly enough of the Clontarf Academy and the fine work they are doing in our community. I pay particular tribute to the Clontarf team at Gunbalunya; that is, Lee Stewart and Marius Clarke. I know they are working very closely with Clontarf people at Jabiru, Brad Copeland and Jason Roe. The partnership with West Arnhem College has proven to be invaluable to the people of this region, and I know it is greatly appreciated.
I would also like to place on the record the appreciation I feel for the hard work and dedication put in by all the staff at Gunbalunya School, both Billie Djayhgurrnga and Sue Trimble, who are doing a great job at school, and I believe attendance is going very well. Honourable members may not be aware that the school at Gunbalunya has been trialling, over the past two years, an early start to the school year, and this appears to be paying dividends by way of improving attendance rates.
There are many communities in the Northern Territory which are cut off and isolated during the Wet Season and local movement is extremely difficult. There is often no way to visit homelands during the Wet so people are stuck in town and the children are running around with not much to do. The idea is to take advantage of the situation and conditions and, later in the year, have extended school holidays during the Dry. It is a commonsense approach to very real problems, and I commend communities and all involved for their effort.
I do not have enough time available here to mention all the people who had input into the success I talk about tonight, but I will name a few and I apologise in advance for any I miss: John Bray, Randall Cook, Betty Maralngurra, Phil Maunders, Marion Guppy and all the hard-working and dedicated teachers in West Arnhem College, as well as others I have already mentioned.
I quote from the words delivered by the Master of Ceremonies on the day, Dr James Smith:
- Today is a celebration of the achievements of Gunbalunya School community. I use that term in the broadest sense. The word ‘community’ means different things to different people. For us, today, it is about acknowledging the milestone of the first ever Year 12 graduates of Gunbalunya Community School. It is about embracing the important commitment of local early year’s staff working in crche, Families as First Teachers and preschool settings. It is about applauding the effort of key community partners such as CDEP participants at West Arnhem Shire, Injalak Art and Craft, and DEMED; and it is about dedicated community members that voluntarily participated in mediation training to ensure their local community is kept safe and strong. These achievements and the occupational opportunities they create support each of them to feel empowered and their contribution valued within their own local community. Step-by-step, these achievements make a difference.
While this is a celebration of the achievement of many, it is important not to overshadow the achievement of the first two Year 12 students to graduate from Gunbalunya Community School. This is an important moment in the history of the school and reflects the hard work and dedication of many staff, over a number of years, to provide a solid educational foundation for local children.
The path to celebrations like this can often be long and windy - with sharp turns, potholes, and the occasional road-kill along the way. It reflects the combined effort of a range of players – a dedicated school leader, in our case, our two co-principals, skilled and enthusiastic staff at all levels of the education system from preschool through to primary and secondary years, committed families that encourage their children to attend school, but which also support them to learn in the home, on the land, and at school; school partners that contribute to the activities and programs that support the students to learn; and finally the persistence of each and every student to give their very best effort.
James and Robert are great role models to the children of Gunbalunya. They should be proud of their achievements.
These words reflect very clearly the attitude, pride and confidence felt by local people, and I place on record my admiration for these achievements which can only be attributed to the whole community. I very sincerely look forward to working very closely with the community, and the region, and supporting them wherever I can.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, tonight I speak on a matter that was raised by the very hard-working member for Daly in his adjournment debate last night. The member for Daly, who was taking on board the concerns of his constituents in the Daly River region, spoke last night about the Vista Gold waste discharge licence from the Mt Todd Mine, and the need for further community consultation.
The public meeting held by Vista Gold in Katherine last Saturday was a great success. Around 20 members of the local town turned up to air their concerns and ask some of the pressing questions that were on their minds. Also present were representatives from Vista, along with staff from the Departments of Mines and Energy and Land Resource Management, as well as from the EPA.
The member for Daly, in his speech last night, raised a good point. On the back of successful Katherine meetings, the residents of Daly should be afforded the same opportunity. That is an example of a good local member working hard for his community and his constituents. The member for Daly has approached me and asked to have staff from the same departments, and the EPA, to be available for such a meeting in his region. Of course, a reasonable request deserves a reasonable response, and I am pleased to advise I have considered the member for Daly’s request and I will ask my Chief Executives to make staff available to attend such a meeting once a date and location is provided. I will also seek the attendance of a representative from the EPA.
The Water Act does not require a statutory consultation process to take place before, during, or after the issue of a waste discharge licence; however, in response to this very reasonable request by the member for Daly – who, I might add, is a very hard-working member and certainly a more responsive member for Daly than his predecessor - I am happy to assist the people of Daly to have a forum where they can ask their questions, get the answers, and build an understanding of the issues around the waste discharge licence. I thank the member for Daly for bringing this matter to my attention.
I also speak tonight about a revolution that is happening in my little patch in Katherine. It is a quiet revolution and one that is improving the health and fitness of many people in my great town. It would seem that Katherine is in the midst of a fitness revolution. That might be a slight exaggeration; however, the interest and enthusiasm for these types of activities is at an all-time high, in spite of the near 40 degree heat we have been experiencing, maybe not in the last week or two, but certainly in months before.
Generally, most attention goes to children and sport; however, the state of adult health is a huge issue throughout this nation, and in Katherine we are starting to do something about it. Boot camp is now averaging at least 30 per session, with sometimes as many as 40. We have at least three, and maybe more teams, which equates to about 15-20 people, entering the Blood, Sweat and Fears obstacle course in Darwin in May. We have gone from one entrant in the international Natural Bodybuilding Association’s bodybuilding competition to five this year. Further, there has been interest from at least three men who have the intention of joining up next year. That would mean the Katherine contingent would make up one fifth of the whole line-up from the Northern Territory. How good is that? It is another example of Katherine punching above its weight.
There is a gym circuit class that was started on a Monday. This used to get four or five people but quickly grew to 10 or 12 and now there are 20-22 people attending and the gym room is busting at the seams. About five weeks ago, a run around the low-level loop on a Monday night commenced. In a short time that has grown to 12 adults and four children meeting to run around our beautiful river tracks. All this, of course, is on top of the efforts by individuals and those who attend the YMCA and the Tindal gym.
I need to mention that this quiet revolution is being driven by a number of people but, in particular, I want to mention a young lady by the name of Kirsten Engels. Kirsten is a driven individual who should be congratulated for helping loads of people in Katherine reach their fitness goals. Kirsten organised for one of the top Australian trainers in bodybuilding, Ingrid Barclay, of Body Conquest Geelong, to come to Katherine to hold a competition workshop, which happened last week. The most exciting of all is that she brought with her one of Australia’s best female competitors, Renata Stojanovski, who, in 2012, came fourth in the universe athletic division and holds plenty of national titles as well. Renata has been in the bodybuilding industry as a competitor, judge, and trainer for 25 years. On the day, six women and two men attended the all-day bodybuilding seminar; five of those will compete in May. Another 30 people joined the group for three hours of nutrition, and there were one-on-one sessions which sold out in about 30 minutes of advertising. Ingrid and Renata also held a mixture of nutrition and competition posing sessions all day long. Suffice it to say, the weekend was a raving success.
As far as trainers go, we are working on that, too. Kirsten has four others studying for their Certificate III and IV in Fitness, and she is qualified to Certificate IV Workplace Training so is now able to sign off many of these trainees on their modules.
We will keep ticking along and see if we can make Katherine the healthiest town in the Northern Territory. It is very exciting, and I say that genuinely because in this day and age when there is so much negativity around and we are all worried about alcohol consumption and many of the big health issues, to have something like this poke its head up and say, ‘Here, look at me as an example of some of the good things happening around the Territory’, I am excited to be speaking about it tonight.
Furthermore, I throw out a challenge. The challenge is to any other town in Australia to match us. Considering that we exercise in the extreme heat, the drop-dead humidity, and the feedback is that the boot camp running in Katherine is one the hardest around. The ladies who visited Katherine last week were completely and utterly exhausted, but they are raving about the place. They just love Katherine, they have fallen in love with it, and I have no doubt, and I certainly hope, they will be back.
The adult population of Katherine is facing its training goals and smashing them; and I wanted to brag about it a little on their behalf.
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, tonight I speak on two separate topics. Firstly, I want to congratulate my eight-year old cousin, Alanah, who lives in Adelaide. She is a real little pocket rocket and has just been selected to play for Contax netball team in the sub-primary category. She has been training very hard for the last three weeks to secure a position on that team and has come through with the goods as we all knew she would. She will be playing for them in the winter games and is very excited. Congratulations to her. I miss you very much and look forward to hearing about your team’s success in that competition.
On 26 January 2013, at the Palmerston Australia Day Awards and Citizenship Ceremony, 81-year old Margot Cox, a Drysdale constituent, was awarded the prestigious honour of being Palmerston’s Citizen of the Year for 2013.
Margot is a tremendous woman in the Palmerston community and is much loved by young and old. Her contribution to the fabric of the Northern Territory is rich and humbling. I have to thank Margot for sharing her life story with me so this evening I can share her story with the Territory. I spent two hours with Margot and will endeavour to do her life story justice in this adjournment speech. However, it is highly likely I will continue tomorrow.
Margot’s Northern Territory adventure of a lifetime began on 9 September 1951 when she arrived in Katherine with her mother. Margot had come from Toowoomba where she was a much loved trainee nurse. I am informed Margot was the matron’s pet and was offered a leave of absence from her role as her resignation was not accepted. Margot accepted the leave of absence, but was never to return. Margot was just 20-years old at that time.
Margot and her mother had moved to Katherine to live with her aunty and uncle who part owned Moroak Station with Les MacFarlane. The very next day, 10 September 1951, Margot met a roadworks grader and a man named Paddy O’Connor. Little did Margot know this roadworks grader was her future husband to be, Fred Cox, whom she affectionately refers to as Freddie.
Margot wanted to continue with her nursing training and travelled to Darwin to pursue her career; however, there were no vacancies. She travelled back to Katherine and was promptly proposed to by roadworks grader, Fred Cox. Margot accepted his proposal.
In those days, Margot had to collect the mail at Mataranka. An urgent telegram was waiting for her asking that she immediately return to Darwin Hospital. Fred did not want to waste any time in getting married, but Margot returned to Darwin Hospital to speak with the matron. As Margot climbed the stairs of the Darwin Hospital on her way to see the matron, the dispenser called out to her uncle, who was accompanying her. The dispenser called, ‘Is that your niece?’ When Margot’s uncle acknowledged, the dispenser said, ‘I want to see her before she goes up there’. The dispenser promptly offered Margot a job in the hospital dispensary. During Margot’s time in Darwin she lived with Earl James’ mother and father.
Margot’s love for Fred was indefeasible, and she returned to Katherine to marry the love of her life on 10 May 1952. Margot recounted that Fred and she had been working through an invite list for the wedding, but Katherine being the small intimate community it was then, were told invitations were a waste of time because everyone would come anyway. Margot commented to me it was ‘Territory-style’.
Fred being a road grader meant he and Margot were swiftly off on their honeymoon which, unbeknown to her at the time, would be a honeymoon that would form part of the history of the Northern Territory. Margot said to me, ‘I went bush with Fred two days after our wedding. He and his mate were grading the road up to Arnhem Land’. Fred and Margot and Fred’s mate, Ian McLean, left Katherine with the task of grading the road from Maranboy turnoff to Mainoru Station. At that time, Margot was not yet a domestic goddess and struggled to cook meals for her new husband and Ian, let alone under the conditions she found herself in, a far cry from the dispensary.
They set off from Katherine in an ex-army truck, clapped out caravan and grader in tow. The caravan was missing a window and her kitchen consisted of an old ex-army oven that had a side extension on which you could fry food or boil a billy. They slept on swags as the caravan was too small to sleep in. They carried their own water supply in a furphy tank and used an oil copper boiler for washing day and a tin tub in which they had hot baths.
Margot was a smart woman and would always get to the bath first, leaving the boys with the dirty water, and who could blame her – ladies first.
They also carried a collapsible table and seats, drums of petrol, diesel and oil. They were laden with bags of flour, sugar, potatoes, onions and other staples such as enough tinned food to last them at least one month.
While Margot was not the natural domestic goddess - and how could anyone blame her when she was in constant battle with the crows and the weevils - she learnt to make bread in a hurry. In time, Margot was baking cakes and biscuits and all sorts of treats with the very barest of essentials under the harshest of conditions. She was a pioneer on a journey to the middle of nowhere with the love of her life, paving the future of the Territory by delivering roads to Mainoru, and later Bulman.
Over time, the caravan was upgraded and it even contained a double bed which acted as a perfect storage facility for their food supplies. Margot also had a kerosene fridge, which was very fickle to get right and would continue to smoke for days and days. She was kept company during the long, lonely days by her gramophone and 20 records. She went out on the roads with Fred only once. On that occasion, the grass was so thick and so high that Fred could not see the large ditch they plunged into. Needless to say, that was enough for her.
Fresh meat and supplies were few and far between. Every three weeks or so, one of the Aboriginal boys working on the stations would drop them a sugar bag of meat. In return, they enjoyed the fruits of her newly-acquired skill of baking. The Aboriginal boys were their lifeline as they would walk from the stations to not only deliver food, but messages and supplies.
I would like to read part of Margot’s recount of her life story:
- The many river crossing culverts were, in most cases, badly washed out, so Fred kept requesting a dozer be sent to rearrange the rocks’ debris. But, emphatically, he was told there were no funds to cover more equipment, so he was to do the work with the grader.
The men worked five-and-a-half days and Sunday was service day for the truck and grader. Our destination was to be Mainoru Station so, after many weeks, we were looking forward to returning to our house in Katherine. Imagine our amazement to get a message to hold up as a road had to be graded to Tiger Brennan’s lead zinc mine in Arnhem Land at a place called Bulman.
This was all virgin land. No fires had been burnt through the area for many years so the grass and vegetation was tall and dense. Jack McKay, who owned Mainoru, had gone some of the way blazing trees to signify where he thought the best direction the road should go. There were no surveyors in that time.
Sally Jack was on a horse while doing this task, and the cuts on the trees were high up and mostly on the wrong side for easy identification. Fred and Ian McLean, who had become the offsider after Paddy O’Connor decided to go back to Katherine, took several days searching before the road was commenced. Many wash away ditches were not evident as the grass had caused them to be camouflaged to look like even ground, and caused many problems. Some could have resulted in serious accidents.
As I have said, we camped out in our swags and had to build wind breaks as the nights were often cold and windy. The only time I can remember feeling uneasy was when we camped near Lindsay Springs and the buffalo wallowed quite close to where we camped. I stayed in the camp by myself each day with only a wind-up gramophone and 20 records to entertain me. But I had bread to bake and an evening meal to cook, as well as biscuits and cakes, in the old army oven.
When we finally arrived near the mine, we got another message. ‘The mine is proving viable and an airstrip needs to be built so we are sending out a dozer’. After all the hard work with the grader with no doors, this news was just too much. We requested to go home.
Fred and Margot had four lovely children, Alfred Roy, Eric James, Cyril John, and Janelle Ann, in five short years. All four children were born in Katherine Hospital. The maternity ward in those days consisted of beds on the verandah of the building and the birthing suite consisted of four walls and four doors. Their family home was located on Second Street in Katherine on the half-acre block of land Fred had purchased a few years prior to meeting Margot. Their home was where the Katherine Furniture Shop now is. Their home was modest; it had no ceiling or fans. It was made of corrugated iron and had a front door that was 20 foot wide and made of calico. The walls did not meet the floor so as to allow ventilation throughout the house; however, whilst these gaps allowed the breeze to enter, so too did they allow the rats and the snakes.
Margot shared a story with me about the time a rat plague invaded the house. A mother rat had decided, at one point, that the clothes basket in the bathroom would be the optimum place to have her litter - an interesting experience for Margot, but only one of many.
Roy, Eric, Cyril and Janelle were all schooled in Katherine, albeit in difficult and isolated educational circumstances. When the children were in high school, Margot would happily work as a supervisor in Fred’s cousin’s shop at the Katherine Store.
Fred was born in Pine Creek and had a large family. He left school at the age of 11 and worked on the railway. On his 21st birthday on 3 March, it was pelting rain, but he had his damper and corned beef in his saddle bag and he was happy. He would often tell Margot stories about the Chinese families of Pine Creek and the gold rush - stories of how the Chinese used to put gold in the coffins of their dead as a way of sending gold back to their families in China.
Fred also worked in the mines in those early days and, unfortunately, like so many others, he suffered from emphysema for much of his life. I will continue tomorrow.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, tonight I congratulate local multicultural groups for organising some fantastic events over the last month. Out on the Wanguri campaign trail I had the opportunity to attend some terrific events in our community that celebrated the cultural diversity of Darwin.
Being a new hand at being a candidate, I was overwhelmed at how welcoming the local groups were and was impressed by the attendance and the organisation of these events. The first event I was at was the Australia Day Fun run. This Australia Day was the best one I have had in years. I went along to the run first thing in the morning and did the 4 km jog with the thousands of other participants, and had a great time there sweating it out. Congratulations to the Australia Day Council on a professionally run event. It was great to see people of all ages and fitness levels having a go. It was also terrific to see many multicultural groups assisting with the water along the track, again highlighting what a multicultural place we have here.
Later that afternoon I had the pleasure of attending a celebration organised by the Darwin Malayalee Association at the water gardens. It celebrated Indian Republic Day and Australia Day together. It was a truly dual celebration where we started with the Australian and the Indian national anthems. We had Australian and Indian flag raising, unlike any flag raising ceremony I had ever seen before - the flags hitting the top of the mast, opening up, and dropping a beautiful array of flowers. It was a beautiful sight during sunset.
The highlight of that event for me was the stories the young children shared with us. They gave their views on comparisons between Australia Day and Indian Republic Day. It was clear that these children were proud Australians, proud Indians, and proud Territorians. Then this was finished off by a sausage sizzle. I congratulate the association’s President, Neethi Ashok, and the committee, on organising this wonderful event.
The next event I attended that evening was OzFusion at the Cypriot Club. That is what I call a real party and a real celebration of our diversity. We saw groups performing from around the globe: African drummers, Bollywood dancers, Tongan dancers, Sri Lanka dancers, Filipino jamming bands, just to name a few of the acts. The place was packed and the energy level in the room was amazing; everyone had a big smile on their face, and when the night was finishing there were still people on the dance floor which - a real indication that it was a terrific night.
The organisers and the entertainment should be commended. OzFusion celebrates what Darwin is about and celebrates our cultural diversity. Well done to the Multicultural Council of the NT, Melaleuca Refugee Centre, the Australia Day Council, the City of Darwin and the Cypriot community; top work on organising a top event.
I was also fortunate enough to attend Chinese New Year functions a few weeks ago. The first event was held by the Vietnamese community to celebrate the New Year. The new hall at Marrara is a great facility and the community must be commended on their hard work to raise the funds to contribute towards building it. The previous Labor government assisted them with land and the Darwin Vietnamese community now has an amazing facility to call their own. You can see there is real potential to build on it in the future, and it is another wonderful multicultural establishment for the community.
There was a great turnout there as well. Formalities started with prayers, followed by the Australian and Vietnamese national anthems. Then we watched a presentation on the Vietnam War and held a minute’s silence.
I also had the honour and good fun of being invited up on the stage with the Leader of the Opposition to present the small children with some New Year’s gifts of red envelopes containing some pocket money. That was a real treat for me; I had not done that before and I thank them for that opportunity. Entertainment soon followed with some terrific singers and a whole mix of songs in English and Vietnamese. It was a great event, and I thank Thien Lee and Bac Lam and the Vietnamese community of Darwin for the opportunity to attend.
We then moved on to the Chinese Timorese club to celebrate Chinese New Year there. Thank you to Rui Mu for the wonderful welcome and terrific food. There was more fantastic entertainment that evening and I discovered the lead singer of the fabulous band was the former member for Jingili, Rick Setter’s wife. She is a wonderful singer, a true entertainer. I hear she has a CD out for anyone who might be interested in having a listen to a great voice. I must admit it was a bit of a time warp for me to see old fashion dancing happening, but it was a delightful experience and one I am grateful to have had the opportunity to attend.
I felt honoured to share these celebrations with our local multicultural groups. I congratulate all the organisers and the performers on their great work, and I am looking forward to attending many more of these events as the new member for Wanguri.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, this evening I want to talk about Question Time today and a question I asked the Chief Minister. It was about the contracts signed in the bush representing election commitments and promises to the bush, and the question was very simple: what is happening, what costs have been put to these projects, when does the Chief Minister plan to deliver these projects, and how will they be delivered? The Chief Minister talked about framing the contracts and displaying them on his desk, then he passed the question to the Minster for Infrastructure.
The Minster for Infrastructure took his usual approach and went into a rant and tirade of abuse and talked about pulling bitumen out of his pocket, but did not really talk about what this government is planning to do about fulfilling those election commitments in the bush. In that rant, the Minister for Infrastructure bellowed across the Chamber that Labor had done nothing on the Port Keats Road, that Labor had done nothing in its term, and went into quite an interesting rant that the Labor government had done nothing. He did not answer the question which was focusing on that important contract made with the people from Wadeye and those constituents in the Daly.
I did some research, and tonight we can hear the story of what Labor did on the Port Keats Road in the last couple of years, from the minister. We will hear the CLP Minister for Infrastructure tell this House what the previous Labor government did for the people of Wadeye and Nauiyu and other communities around that area. I will read from the National Indigenous Times of Wednesday 23 January 2013. The headline says ‘$24 Million Port Keats Road Improvements Complete for Wet’. The story and image is supplied by Bruce Cutler, and I will read from this article.
- The opening of a $24m Top End bridge will significantly improve access to several remote communities during the Wet.
NT Transport and Infrastructure minister Adam Giles and and federal member for Lingiari Warren Snowdon today officially opened the 184 m Bul Bul Bridge, near the community of Nauiyu at Daly River.
Mr Giles said the single-lane bridge, which is 13 m higher than the existing low-level crossing, will improve access for tourism, the fishing and pastoral industries, and the more remote communities of Woodycupaldiya,Palumpa, Peppimenarti and Wadeye.
The project includes 2 km of new road embankment and more than 60 people worked on site during construction of the bridge which connects the existing Daly River and Port Keats Roads.
‘The pleasing aspect of this is it included 20 local Indigenous personnel who undertook a range of tasks including steel fixing, environmental management and machinery operation, with eight of them reaching Certificate Level 2 qualifications’, Mr Giles said.
‘These skills are transferrable and projects like this are hugely important to supporting real job opportunities and economic development for our remote communities’.
‘In such remote areas we know infrastructure is important, so we thank the Australian government for their $11m contribution to the Port Keats Road on top of our contribution of $13m, which has seen this project completed quickly and efficiently’, Mr Giles said.
Federal member for Lingiari, Warren Snowdon, said the project was part of the Gillard Government’s $97m Community, Beef and Mining Roads Improvement Program in the Territory.
‘Opening this bridge just before the Wet Season is terrific news for communities in the area - it will reduce the Wet Season road closure from an average of 114 days to just three to five days per year’, said Mr Snowdon.
‘That means more secure access to food and services for the communities of Peppimenarti, Pulumpa and Wadeye, along with pastoral stations, tourist parks plus increased access to the area for those working on the maintenance of the Bonaparte gas pipeline’.
This bridge builds on our previous work upgrading the Tom Turners Crossing to a 2 km sealed full carriage-way and is part of our commitment to give people in the bush safe, secure roads’, Mr Snowdon said.
The bridge name, Bul Bul, was suggested by the traditional owners of the area, the Malak Malak people, in honour of the renowned Aboriginal tracker who passed away in 1943.
For the record, there is a wonderful photo of the Country Liberal Party minister for Construction and the federal member for Lingiari, the Honourable Warren Snowdon, cutting a ribbon with many kids and big smiling faces. That was a great story in the National Indigenous Times and it was good to have the story told of what the Labor government did in that area by the CLP minister for Construction.
I also add that the previous member for Daly was a great advocate, a hard-working local member and one of the true lobbyists for these improvements in road infrastructure delivered by the Northern Territory Labor government in partnership with the Australian government for the people who live in this area.
There are also considerable other road maintenance projects further west of the area where the $24m Port Keats Road improvements were conducted. That was, basically, areas I travelled across by road with the member for Daly. He took me there on a number of occasions to show me that area and these areas of road were identified for flood mitigation work. They were to be raised and sheeted and, all up, there was around 30 km of really hard areas of the Port Keats Road that were to be upgraded. The nature of the roads upgrade program was to target those troublesome areas to provide better flood immunity and to, eventually, get to a position where these remote roads would be ready to seal.
The question for the Chief Minister, essentially, was what has the Country Liberal Party done in continuing this work? The question was not answered. It was delivered with a tirade of abuse and some sensational politicking, but it is nice to get back to the basics and really get the truth out there in the adjournment debate.
Now I will pose the next question: what is new from the Country Liberal Party? The Chief Minister tells us the Country Liberal Party has been in government for six months, and the minister for Construction is one superman over on that side claiming the $24m Port Keats Road improvement program, but neglecting to tell us, during Question Time, anything about it. The essential question is: what is new from the CLP? We want to hear about the new infrastructure in the bush. We want to hear about the Chief Minister’s priority and planning and we want to hear about the costing and the budget allocations. We are really keen to see these projects go ahead because, as discussed in that story by the minister for Construction, there were untold opportunities in training to employment and engaging local people in economic developments.
Let us hear it, Chief Minister. Let us really celebrate this together. You have a considerable amount of election commitments and promises to the bush to fulfil. Let us talk about it; let us not be shy. If a politician makes promises, then people expect them to be delivered. The people in the bush have long memories and are waiting for the Country Liberal Party to deliver on their election promises from the 2012 election.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016