2013-10-09
Madam Speaker Purick took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, yesterday I made an announcement towards the latter part of the day that the member for Nelson, Mr Gerry Wood, was comfortable and accepted being an Acting Deputy Speaker. I overlooked asking the government and the opposition if they would like to provide someone. Therefore, the offer for Acting Deputy Speaker is on the table. If the government or the opposition would like to nominate someone else, I would be pleased to receive that nomination.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr Vowles: Read Hansard and see that statement, it is embarrassing. You wasted our time in here.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Johnston.
Mr Tollner: Do not kick him out. He has hardly said boo all year. Is he still talking?
Mr Vowles: Let us talk outside.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Johnston, I would like you to leave the Chamber. You can talk outside.
Leave the Chamber for one hour, pursuant to Standing Order 240A.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I wanted to ensure I understood what the member for Johnston said. Did he threaten a member of parliament to take something outside?
Madam SPEAKER: No, I do not believe so. No, he did not, member for Port Darwin. He has been asked to leave the Chamber for one hour.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Child abuse material is defined in the Criminal Code Act as any material that depicts or describes, in a manner that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult, a child (or person who appears to be a child) engaging in sexual activity, in a sexually offensive or demeaning context, or being subject to torture, cruelty, or abuse. Goodness gracious me, that such material exists.
Pursuant to section 125B(1) of the Criminal Code Act, it is illegal to possess, distribute, produce, sell, offer, or to advertise for distribution or sale any child abuse material except in the circumstances prescribed in section 125B(2) and 125B(4); namely, possession by a law enforcement officer in the exercise of his or her duties under an act of law for classification purposes, or for legitimate medical or health research purposes.
The Northern Territory Police and the Department of Attorney-General and Justice have noted deficiencies in the forfeiture and destruction powers regarding child abuse material. This has resulted in both the courts and police being unable to order the destruction of child abuse material and items which contain child abuse material in certain circumstances.
With regard to the powers of the courts, section 125B(6) of the Criminal Code Act requires a court to order the forfeiture and destruction of child abuse material, and gives the court the discretion to order the forfeiture and destruction of any other articles seized in relation to that offending. However, these powers can only be exercised where a court convicts a person of an offence against section 125B.
Whilst it is a rare occurrence, a court may find a person guilty of an offence against section 125B, but may not record a conviction against that person. As section 125B(6) is predicated upon conviction, the court may not have the power to authorise the destruction of child abuse material where a person is found guilty, but the court does not record a conviction.
This bill, at clause 6, rectifies this issue by removing the requirement for a conviction to be recorded to trigger the forfeiture and destruction power and, instead, requiring a finding of guilt. This will allow the courts to order the forfeiture and destruction of child abuse material in every matter where there is a finding of guilt for an offence pursuant to section 125B of possessing child abuse material, and will give the courts the discretion to order the forfeiture and destruction of any other articles seized at the same time.
Clause 7 of the bill contains a detailed transitional provision relating to the amendment of section 125B(6), and states that the amendment only applies to offences committed after the commencement of this bill.
Neither the Criminal Code Act nor the Police Administration Act contain provisions permitting the forfeiture and destruction of child abuse material in circumstances where there is no finding of guilt recorded with respect to that material; for example, where a person is acquitted of charges of possessing child abuse material; where there is no one charged due to difficulties in ascertaining who downloaded, created, viewed, or possessed the material; where a person is found not guilty due to mental impairment; or where a person is found not guilty after a special hearing. In such circumstances, the child abuse material must remain in the physical custody of police indefinitely, as police have no authority to destroy it, as section 125B(6) is not applicable and cannot return it as it is illegal to possess such material.
The fact that no charges were laid or no finding of guilt was recorded for an offence relating to child abuse material should not prevent the Northern Territory Police from ordering the forfeiture and destruction of child abuse material or, if the material is stored by electronic means, from either destroying that article or permanently wiping all child abuse material from it.
Clause 5 of this bill allows a police officer of senior rank, being rank of Commander or above, to authorise the forfeiture and destruction of child abuse material, any article which contains child abuse material, and any article that a senior officer reasonably suspects may contain child abuse material. The ‘reasonably believes’ threshold is necessary as investigators may not be able to access or view certain data files due to encryption, password protections, masking, embedding, or virus programs.
Clause 5 of the bill states that the power can be reasonably exercised, irrespective of whether a person has been charged with an offence relating to the material, and mandates the places at which the material can be destroyed.
Clause 5 of the bill also affords a police officer, at or above the rank of Commander, the discretion to authorise the return of an article which contained child abuse material to the lawful owner. This power can only be exercised if the police officer is satisfied that all child abuse material has been deleted from the article. This discretion will allow articles such as computers, iPods, iPhones and other electronic items to be returned to third parties where an authorised officer is satisfied the device no longer contains any child abuse material.
Any form of child abuse material is abhorrent, and it is vitally important that both the courts and police have the ability to order the destruction of such material when it is seized by police.
This government is focused on ensuring the administration of justice is not impeded by oversights in legislation, and this bill will rectify the current anomaly in the Criminal Code Act whereby child abuse material can only be destroyed where the material is subject to a conviction for an offence under section 125B of the Northern Territory Criminal Code Act.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.
This bill provides for a small amendment to the Mental Health and Related Services Act to clarify that the rules of evidence do not apply to proceedings of the Mental Health Review Tribunal. While this may be a small amendment, it is an important one. It will keep the tribunal operating smoothly, efficiently, fairly and transparently. It will ensure the tribunal continues to operate as intended, and in a manner that is suitable and tailored to the needs of vulnerable people who come before it.
The Mental Health Review Tribunal is established under Part 15 of the Mental Health and Related Services Act. The tribunal is an independent statutory body that has the power to make decisions about the care and treatment of people who have a mental illness, mental disturbance, or complex cognitive impairment. The majority of tribunal hearings are to decide whether a person needs to be treated as an involuntary patient either in a hospital or in the community.
While most of the Mental Health and Related Services Act is the responsibility of the Minister for Health, under the Administrative Arrangements Order, Part 15 (which deals with the tribunal and its procedures), it is my responsibility as the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice. That is why I am bringing forward this bill in the House, rather than the Minister for Health.
Until recently, it was generally accepted that the procedures of the tribunal were to be as informal as practicable and that the rules of evidence do not apply to the proceedings before it. The rules of evidence are the general body of law regulating how facts are to be established in legal proceedings. They can cover the rules of proof, how evidence is adduced, and what sort of evidence is admissible. It includes the common law rules of evidence, as well as the statutory rules of evidence such as the Evidence (National Uniform Evidence) Act.
The exclusion of the rules of evidence in relation to the Mental Health Review Tribunal is consistent with its role and its aim of ensuring therapeutic justice. Although the rules of evidence are important to the administration of justice and are adhered to as much as possible, a strict application of the rules of evidence is not conducive to the aim of ensuring therapeutic justice or to the general comfort of such vulnerable patients. The tribunal also handles a large number of matters on a compressed time line and the application of the rules of evidence would impede its ability to perform its function effectively.
To provide an example, the circumstances where the rules of evidence should not be applied are, generally, where it is necessary to enable the informal nature of the tribunal proceedings to continue. This could include allowing for free flowing questions and answers, not applying the strict rules regarding cross-examination (such as the rules about not being able to ask leading questions or to cross-examine one’s own witness) and allowing for the decision-maker to ask questions and seek further information to clarify issues. This approach is consistent with a decision-making body that deals with vulnerable patients in the wider therapeutic justice context.
This amendment was proposed to address recent comments made by Justice Kelly in a matter before the Mental Health Review Tribunal (appeal LA3 of 2013 reference 21304497) which cast doubt on the generally accepted understanding that the rules of evidence do not apply to proceedings of a Mental Health Review Tribunal.
Although there are various provisions throughout the Mental Health and Related Services Act that are consistent with the rules of evidence not applying (for example section 129(2) which provides that hearings are simply ‘conducted in a manner decided by the tribunal’) there is no express displacement of the rules of evidence. Although the appeal was, ultimately, withdrawn and Justice Kelly did not make any ruling in this regard, her comments now mean there is some uncertainty about the operation of the tribunal.
It is noted that similar decision-making bodies in other jurisdictions are expressly not required to apply the rules of evidence; for example, section 151 of the Mental Health Act 2007 of New South Wales. Similarly, a range of courts and tribunals under Territory law are also expressly excluded from having to apply the rules of evidence, such as the Lands Planning and Mining Tribunal, the Northern Territory Licensing Commission, the Health Professional Review Tribunal and the Local Government Tribunal, as well as the Coroner when conducting a coronial inquest, and the Local Court when exercising its Family Matters jurisdiction.
Accordingly, it is proposed to insert a new section 133(3) in a similar manner to provide that the tribunal is not required to comply with the rules of evidence and may inform itself, in any relevant matter, in any way it considers to be appropriate.
As I mentioned before, the rules of evidence are, and will continue to be, applied where it is appropriate by the tribunal. However, I also stress that although this bill provides the tribunal is not required to apply the rules of evidence, it will not operate to exclude the application of procedural fairness, also known as natural justice. Procedural fairness is the common law principle that encapsulates the duty of the courts and other decision-makers to ensure they apply fair procedures when making decisions that affect the interests, rights, or legitimate expectations of another person.
The three basic rules of procedural fairness are the hearing rule, which is a right to put ones case; the bias rule with the decision-maker not having an interest in or bringing a prejudice mind to the matter; and the no evidence rule where the decision must be based on logically probative evidence.
The right to procedural fairness is a well-accepted and understood common law right which can be changed depending on the nature of the proceedings. The presumption that procedural fairness is to be observed can only be displaced with clear legislative provisions. Simply excluding the rules of evidence would not be sufficient to oust the requirement for procedural fairness. Accordingly, despite this bill having the effect that the rules of evidence will not be applied by the Mental Health Review Tribunal, it will still be required to observe procedural fairness in its proceedings as it has always done.
Although on paper it appears to be only a minor amendment, in fact it is a vital one. It will maintain the operation of the tribunal in a manner in which it was intended to operate, and will provide for the comfort and wellbeing of the patients who come before it, while still ensuring a robust process. In my view, these sorts of housekeeping amendments are integral to maintaining a healthy and well-functioning justice system.
Before I finish I thank the president of the tribunal, Mr Cavenagh, Stipendiary Magistrate, for bringing this matter to the attention of me and my department.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the Energy Pipelines Amendment Bill is very straightforward. The bill seeks to amend the current Energy Pipelines Act in two ways: first, by removing any references in the current act to the payment of monetary amounts and/or prescribed fees, as all the fees will now be listed in Schedule 2 of the Energy Pipelines Regulations; and second, by removing the existing formula under section 30(1) of the act for calculating licence fees, as this will now be outlined in the Energy Pipelines Regulations.
The sought changes serve to bring the existing act in line with other Northern Territory legislation whereby the level of fees and charges for services and approvals are detailed in subordinate legislation rather than contained in the primary statute. This is also the case when existing monetary amounts specified in regulations are replaced by revenue units, the value of which are standardised across Territory legislation and governed by the Revenue Units Act. The monetary value of a revenue unit is updated annually and indexed to reflect changes in CPI.
The benefit of the above approach is any decision taken to update fees and charges does not require an amendment to the act itself, rather only to the regulations or, in this particular instance, to Schedule 2 of the regulations which sets out the level of fees payable under the act.
The proposed changes put forward in the amending bill support a decision taken by this government to increase fees charged under the Energy Pipelines Act and Regulations. It is anticipated the updated fees will result in additional revenue of $50 000 in 2013-14, with an additional $278 000 of revenue generated from 2014-15 onwards. This increased revenue will assist with improved regulation of the sector, including the monitoring of pipeline infrastructure.
It is important to point out there has been no significant increase in energy pipeline fees since 1982, thus the sought increase serves to bring fees charged in the Northern Territory in line with those of other jurisdictions, including Western Australia and South Australia.
Prior to finalisation of this bill, the Department of Mines and Energy discussed proposed fee increases with industry representatives. While few of us like to pay more for anything, responses received from the energy sector indicate the level of increase is neither draconian nor unjustified, given that 31 years have elapsed since the last set of fee rises.
Last, the amendments proposed are administrative in nature and only apply to increases in the level of fees charged and, therefore, do not impact on the day-to-day regulation of pipelines in the Territory.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 28 August 2013.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, the opposition will be supporting this bill.
It is important our emergency and disaster management legislation processes and procedures are constantly reviewed to ensure we are always doing the best we can in this area. The review of this bill started under the last government. While we may have our fights in parliament, there are often times we agree in this House. This bill is a good example, not just of bipartisanship, but of how responsibility can move from one government to another. The review started under us but came forward under this government.
Much of that goes to our professional public service, which we value, and which helped carry that work through. I appreciate the briefing I received from the public service around how this bill started, where it is going, and why we are debating it.
With technology we have the capacity to be far more prepared for the onset of natural disasters, but this can never be guaranteed. Cyclone tracking, for example, has come a long way. Nowadays, you can be at home at night and watch the path of a cyclone and its predicted route and timings on the Internet. While we have come a long way since Tracy, you cannot take things for granted. Even in recent times, not everything can be predicted. We have seen flash flooding that simply cannot be predicted, including the recent derailment of a train on the Edith River.
Disasters and emergencies covered by this legislation come in all shapes and sizes. In the Territory, we are often most at risk from natural disasters like cyclones and floods, and bushfires in the Centre. This does not mean we are immune to other disasters such as earthquakes or tsunamis. We have heard many cyclone stories in this House. I have told a few. You do not often hear earthquake stories, but I am sure some of us can remember the earthquakes in Tennant Creek in 1988. There were three powerful earthquakes in a row, ranging from 6.3 to 6.7, all within half-an-hour of each other. The main infrastructure damage was severe warping of a major natural gas pipeline as large ground ruptures occurred in a 35 km long fault scarp, with up to 2 m vertical displacement formed.
As the member for Barkly would know, Tennant Creek is a hot spot for earthquakes. This has been confirmed by Geoscience Australia on its earthquake hazards map. Tennant Creek is among the locations most likely to be affected by an earthquake.
My larger family of cousins, aunts, and uncles were in town for the quake, but my family and I were on our way back from Cairns. We missed the quakes proper, but got back in time for the aftershocks. Tennant Creek experienced aftershocks for quite a while. They sound like a road train coming through the town, or a washing machine jumping off its spin cycle. People often think of aftershocks as minor, but these were quite big.
I remember a story of a preschool teacher who suddenly jumped under the table when she thought another earthquake was coming. There was a bit of fear of the quakes in the town; they took people by surprise. The aftershocks were strong enough to knock pictures off the walls.
As all members know, preparing for an emergency requires more than good picture hooks. At home, I have a good cyclone kit, and I am sure most people in Darwin have one. We all know what we would do if a cyclone came to Darwin. Preparedness means a lot, but because a cyclone or flood might be able to be predicted, even to a T, it does not always mean it will have a huge impact. You have to plan for all scenarios.
This legislation makes sure our response to any disaster or emergency can be the best and fastest it can be. The amendments create a streamlined framework for the management of emergency situations in the Northern Territory. While the bill in not part of a national uniform scheme, it is linked to national partnership agreements.
The bill strengthens existing powers by providing that the authority to evacuate areas and direct other activity be available from the point when a cyclone watch is issued, rather than awaiting declaration of a cyclone warning. Of course, this does not mean a cyclone watch being issued necessitates an evacuation, but it provides the authority to do so, if required. The examples the minister provided in the past were around clearing people who are fishing out of an area.
When a cyclone comes to Darwin you often see surfers on the ocean trying to catch a wave. I am not sure at what point it is too dangerous to have a board on the water, but there are always times during emergency alerts where people may not be quite convinced of how immediate the danger is and what they need to do. We need to ensure our authorities have the power in those situations to make sure areas are cleared of people and their lives are safe.
A major disaster requires a response from both the Territory and Commonwealth governments, and their respective relevant agencies. This requires coordination. Inquiries into recent events such as the Victorian bushfires have pointed to a coordination of support as a major issue. How do you get those support services working together and doing the right things at the right time? Success of coordination is often measured by degrees. Responses to emergencies will always be carried out with a lack of communication and information to a certain degree. You cannot always know everything, and sometimes you need to have the ability to make decisions from the best information you have available.
The bill provides a structure so communication channels are understood and responsibility is clearly defined. The review that led to this bill provided recommended changes to improve the command and control structures and to provide for coordinated and prioritised multi-agency responses. The bill amends the powers provided under the declaration of a state of emergency and the circumstances under which such a declaration can be made. It provides clear guidelines for the duration of a state of emergency and the process for an extension if required.
The bill provides clear powers for the enforcement of no-go areas during an emergency. It also provides clear powers for capacity for private assets to be used for emergency response purposes, such as shelters or refugee centres. Obviously, in Darwin in the cyclone season, places like Casuarina shopping centre become available as cyclone shelters. When I was living in the northern suburbs, that was a place you might have gone, depending on the condition of your house. The Casuarina Shopping Square is quite popular for people all around Darwin, and maybe even Palmerston, because of the ability to take pets there. I assume that capacity is still there.
One of the important things we need to consider in ensuring preparedness for disaster is the ‘cry wolf’ effect. With technology these days it is possible to provide SMS messages to everybody with a mobile phone in a certain area. Clear guidelines around the use of technology are essential. If we are to get a message on our phones every time a storm capable of causing significant wind or flood damage hits Darwin, we might let our guard down a little as you get constant messages and nothing comes of it. Every time a large rainfall patterns crosses Darwin, for example, there is potential for homes around Rapid Creek to flood, so you always have to be careful about protocols and what you are doing and saying to people. The protocol when such technology should be used needs to be clear so people know that action is required rather than just a warning or a watch has been received.
I believe this bill has been prepared by experts, and we have every confidence, on our side, that the legislative framework required for the proper response to emergency management is provided by this bill.
Madam Speaker, we thank the government for bringing this bill to the House.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I speak in support of this bill. People who know me and where I live would know my main interest is in regard to flooding at the Daly. I have lived there for 15 years and have had water in my house on three or four occasions over that period.
I also heard the member for Fannie Bay talking about changes in technology, and I will just touch on flooding at the Daly. When I first arrived there in the late 1990s, the only form of communication was radio telephone. Those radio telephones still exist west of the Daly, but we have mobile phones and access to the Weather Bureau’s forecasting sites. There have been many changes in those 15 years, but that, in itself, creates other problems. People are aware that the Daly will flood, and we get four or five days advance warning.
In that regard, I have an interest in the changes to this bill. One of the changes I specifically refer to is the emergency declaration function. As far back as the 2002 flood, I had a meeting with Paul Henderson. I cannot remember whether he was the Chief Minister at the time or the minister responsible. At that point, we raised with him that we needed some way of controlling the people who come down to the Daly, because when we are in a flood situation the last thing we want is fishermen getting lost, breaking down, or running out of fuel, as it takes resources away from the emergency.
The reason for talking about technology earlier is that while we say this technology gives us better access to warnings, it also gives fishermen better access to when the river is dropping; and that is the best time for fishing. So it does have its downfalls.
I see this new emergency declaration covered in the act as very helpful at the Daly because we can close roads and the river to stop people from coming in.
The other side of it – again, as far back as that meeting in 2002— is the recovery side. Every time we have had a flood it seems to have been a piecemeal approach, and there were no real plans in place as to how we undertake the recovery. Many local people, me included, have a list of things that need to be done and we build up supplies. I had an interview at the police centre yesterday, and I spoke about water pumps. If we are flooded and need to clean our house, you need to be able to pump water. You cannot pump water without electricity. If the pumps are flooded, you need to have a pump there and so forth. We have built up a stock of bits and pieces we need to ensure that if we are flooded, we can quite easily recover without having to rely on other people.
These types of things need to be put into the recovery plans: what types of materials are needed, where they should be stored, and what people are available to help people recover as soon as they can.
The rest of the bill is very similar to the Disaster Act. However, the change in names will be confusing for people to get their heads around. I struggle with the different terminology, with different emergency management as opposed to disaster controller and local controller, and so forth.
I look forward to the bill being implemented and to being involved in the updating of the current local counter-disaster plans. A lot can be built into those, especially when you look at the Daly and ask when we make these initial declarations, what height, and so forth, so it is a little more publicised.
On the issue of cyclones, along with the automatic implementation of the declaration with a cyclone warning or watch, I would like to see our local counter-disaster plan cover flooding levels as well. We have minor, moderate and major flooding. Where that would be, I am not too sure. It would be very good if we can document that in our local counter-disaster plans, and this bill gives us the ability to do that.
Madam Speaker, I did not want to talk too long; I just wanted to make those few points. I thank the opposition for bringing this initially, the minister for finalising it, and all the staff who have been involved with it. It is something I have wanted for many years, so I will definitely be supporting the bill.
Mr GILES (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Daly for providing his contribution to this debate. He has significant concerns in this area, as he mentioned in his speech, about the flooding issues he sees in the Daly region.
I also thank the member for Fannie Bay for his contribution and the opposition for its support in this debate.
This debate on the Emergency Management Bill 2013 is a debate about a bill that replaces the current Disasters Act and, through replacing the current act, improves the Northern Territory’s disaster response procedures and capabilities.
The Emergency Management Bill 2013 enhances our current procedures for responding to a disaster through the introduction of a new section dealing with the recovery from an event. As I said in the second reading speech when I introduced this bill, no existing legislation covers the recovery phase of emergency management, and arrangements have generally only been outlined in various agency or community plans.
As has been the experience following natural and other disasters around the country or the world, recovery periods can take months or even years, and the coordination of effort is of particular importance following a large-scale emergency with an extended recovery period.
This bill has been introduced as a result of consultations with the Northern Territory Emergency Services which identified a number of recommended changes to enhance the emergency management command and control structure to lead and coordinate cross-agency recovery activities and ensure proper prioritisation and focus of government resources following an emergency or disaster event.
The bill contains the provisions of the old Disaster Act while enhancing it in four specific areas. The bill enables the minister to declare an emergency situation and to amend the period and extension provisions for a state of emergency.
It establishes the legislative authority and governance arrangements to coordinate recovery and direct resources across government for both the initial relief phase and the recovery phase of an emergency situation.
It also addresses technical issues regarding the appointment of local controllers and counter-disaster council members so appointments are not made by name but by an individual’s position or function.
Fourthly, it repeals the Disasters Act and replaces it with the Emergency Management Act to reflect the broader scope of the legislation as proposed.
The change concerning the declaration by the minister of an emergency situation is perhaps the most important component of the bill. The bill proposes that the declaration of an emergency situation be established in legislation and that the declaration will be made by the minister on advice from the Emergency Management Council.
An emergency situation will provide the council, Territory Controller and the Territory Recovery Coordinator with the authority to activate the Northern Territory all-hazard emergency management arrangements. This incorporates Northern Territory recovery management arrangements which are not formally referred to in the old Disasters Act.
An emergency management situation or an emergency situation may also instigate the activation of an agency’s plan depending on the event. This would have the added positive effects of emphasising the significance of the situation. The key benefit of this is the focusing of NT government agency efforts and heightening the awareness of the gravity of the situation to both the public and the Commonwealth.
Importantly, this declaration will be in place for three days, but could be extended for a further period if circumstances have not changed. In the case of a flood, this is important as flood waters may take some time to recede.
This bill also addresses current concerns about recovery coordination and whole-of-government public information during events. The new act will focus the efforts of all levels of government through the formal activation of the Northern Territory All Hazard Emergency Management and Information Group arrangements. The bill makes it clear who is responsible for the activation, management and control of a disaster event.
Once again, I thank all members for their contributions and thank the opposition for its support of the bill. I particularly thank the member for Daly, who is well-versed on the situations around disasters. I again thank the member for Fannie Bay. I am disappointed the Leader of the Opposition did not make a contribution to this debate because disasters and disaster emergency recovery are very important front-of-mind issues for all Territorians. It is of utmost importance that the Leader of the Opposition should have provided a contribution to this debate. Clearly, this once again shows her distain for the Northern Territory, for Territorians, and for this parliament.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Land Resource Management): Madam Speaker, recent decisions taken by the Country Liberals government highlight the challenges of using the Northern Territory’s water resources to drive development. The federal election put northern development generally, and irrigation-based agricultural development specifically, squarely on the national agenda - and not before time.
It was refreshing to see Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s cohesive and comprehensive vision for the north coalesce into this document, which contrasted against failed Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s flimsy three-page document full of poorly-conceived and ill-advised policy-on-the-run ideas.
Our children’s future, the Territory’s future and, indeed, our place in Australia’s future, relies on the wise use of our land and water resources for the economic development and wellbeing of all Territorians. We cannot leave this future to chance, nor can we leave it in the hands of a disinterest government that understands little or nought of the important role the combination of the wise use of land and water resources can bring to the economy of the Northern Territory. Fortunately, Territorians dealt with the latter issue on 25 August last year when Labor was unceremoniously dumped from power.
We have an opportunity, long since lost to southern states, to ensure that development using our natural resources is sustainable and underpinned by quality science and sensible policy.
Today, I provide you with a blueprint for how this government will go forward in managing perhaps the most critical natural resource for our economy, our water. As all Territorians are aware, the Territory has two distinct climate zones, the wet/dry tropical Top End, and the arid and semi-arid southern region. In the Top End, we usually experience monsoonal rainfall between December and April and a long Dry Season of about seven months. Our southern region has a semi-arid to arid climate and rainfall is somewhat erratic, although spread over the year. This rainfall pattern affects the availability of water across the Territory, both on the surface in our rivers and creeks, and underground in our aquifers.
Water is essential to the existence of life across the globe, but not more so than in the Northern Territory. We use water to drink, to irrigate our crops, in our mines, on our farms, in our industries, and in our homes. Here in the Territory, ground water accounts for around 90% of all water sources. It is estimated the annual use of ground water in the NT is about 150 GL. Of our major population centres, Alice Springs and Tennant Creek rely entirely on ground water, with Darwin and Katherine using a combination of ground and surface water supplies. Almost all other smaller communities in the Northern Territory rely solely on ground water supplies.
The Territory’s main industries of pastoralism, tourism, horticulture, and mining also mostly rely on ground water. Irrigated agriculture and horticulture, which is predominantly in the Darwin and Katherine regions, uses approximately 47 GL per year. Around 23.5 GL per year is used for cattle, and our mines use around 17 GL per year. Around 48 GL per year of ground water is used in urban and industrial use. In rural areas where domestic production bores are the main source of water, approximately 8.5 GL per year is used.
Surface water, as a useable irrigation resource, has not significantly featured in the Territory’s water story to date. In-stream dam sites are few and far between due to the low relief landscape and the relative abundance of ground water close to good soils. That has meant that surface water options have not had the focus they may have deserved.
The rights to use, manage, and control all water in the Territory is vested in the Territory and exercisable by the minister, who also appoints the Controller of Water Resources for the purpose of administration and regulation under the Water Act, which includes the granting or refusal of water extraction licences. Under an exemption in the Water Act, landowners and occupiers are able to use water for stock and domestic purposes without a water extraction licence. However, water used for stock and domestic purposes must not affect the rights of people licensed to take water under a water extraction licence.
How do we manage our water resources to ensure we can continue to grow our economy through mining, agriculture, and the pastoral industry, we have enough water to drink, and retain water to support our outstanding natural systems, our fish and our rivers? Today, I introduce this government’s approach for the management of the Territory’s water resources. This approach will guide us towards achieving our vision of wise use of our land and water resources for the economic development and wellbeing of all Territorians.
This approach embraces the Northern Territory government’s Framing the Future vision of establishing a prosperous economy and also achieving a balanced environment. This approach will contribute to food security and, importantly and specifically, to the food security of our near Asian neighbours, and will maintain healthy lands and waters as outlined in Framing the Future. This approach has four central components: (1) a sound legislative base; (2) an overarching water policy for the Territory; (3) an appropriate water allocation and licensing framework; and (4) scientific monitoring and research to provide the evidence base for adaptive water management.
Underpinning the allocation and management of the Territory’s water resources is the Water Act. Originally drafted in 1992, this act has some significant shortcomings. To address these shortcomings, I have asked the Department of Land Resource Management to review the Water Act with the intention of aligning the NT legislation with a national water initiative, a COAG agreed set of objectives and principles designed to improve water management practices across Australia.
The review of the Water Act will also include systems for water trading and water markets, reconsider some of the current exemptions to the act to provide transparency to assure all Territorians that all users are treated evenly and, eventually, to enable the issuing of water licences in perpetuity. The legislative review is currently under way. The approach to water policy in the past has been ad hoc, somewhat parochial, without reference to the national agenda to develop northern Australia and, in my view, unbalanced with an emphasis on protection over economic development.
This will change. The Territory currently has outdated legislation to underpin water resource management. In the past, decisions on provision of water including strategic planning, timing and construction of new support infrastructure have been taken in a policy vacuum. Similarly, decisions on management, allocation, and use of water resources were taken without clear strategic policy guidelines.
The lack of clear policy approach has led to inconsistency in the approach to water management. What has been missing to guide the development and management of our water resources is an overarching Northern Territory water policy. For example, under the previous government some water allocation plans were being prepared which allocated water towards a strategic Indigenous reserve. This occurred without any policy being in place to impose a strategic Indigenous reserve or any defined formula against which to allocate such a reserve, such as land tenure or population. This is an example of where poor decisions were made in the absence of clear strategic policy governing the Territory’s water resources.
Was this another case of the former Labor government simply taking its hands off the tiller, or did it simply lack the intelligence and the courage to address issues that are important to the future economic growth of the Territory?
This approach has now been reviewed by this government with strategic Indigenous reserve no longer included in water allocation plans. It is this government’s view that due to the relatively low level of use of water resources and the right that all Territorians, including Aboriginal Territorians, currently have to seek water licences, it is appropriate that strategic Indigenous reserves no longer be considered in water allocation plans. That said, this is not a government that dares to be so arrogant that it will not listen to the views of others in formulating policy.
In pursuance of maintaining open dialogue on this topic, the policy around strategic Indigenous reserves will undergo a consultation and review process over the course of the next two-and-a-half years to determine if this matter should be reconsidered. In reaching that position, I acknowledge the arguments put forward by the members for Arnhem, Arafura and Stuart who lobbied hard on this matter on behalf of their constituents. The constituents of those electorates are lucky to have such hard-working and determined members representing them in this parliament.
In the meantime, it should be remembered Aboriginal Territorians enjoy rights to non-consumptive uses of water for traditional cultural; that is, hunting or gathering, ceremonial and sacred purposes under the Native Title Act. Native title rights do not extend to extraction of water resources for commercial uses. All Territorians, Aboriginal and non-Indigenous alike, are welcome to apply and receive equal consideration for water extraction licences to support commercial development.
In order to address the lack of water policy and inconsistency in approach, I have directed the Department of Land Resource Management to commence work on drafting an overarching Northern Territory water policy. The water policy will provide a framework for water management in the Territory. The NT water policy will also ensure the Territory aligns to national best practice in water management; as best we can in line with COAG’s National Water Initiative.
While the Northern Territory has actively contributed and implemented national policy reform frameworks for water resource management and water services delivery, this commitment has never been translated into a separate, single and stand-alone policy framework for all stakeholders in the NT water sector. The 2004 Intergovernmental Agreement on a National Water Initiative and its continuing development, refinement, and interpretation through COAG, will provide the core elements of water policy.
The NT water policy will also be cognisant of the nation’s strategic need to ensure food security through development of agriculture in northern Australia. The NT water policy will cover, but not be limited to, the identification, assessment, development, allocation, and management of all water resources in the Territory, whether they are for domestic, industrial, agricultural, environmental, or cultural use. It will clearly define water rights and put to bed some of the misconceptions around existing rights to take water.
The NT water policy will promote sustainable water resource management based on ecologically sustainable use and development of natural systems, and include consideration of surface and ground water use as a whole where such resources are physically connected.
The NT water policy will define the principles regarding water quality in the environment and public water supply quality, and set our principles governing water use for economic purposes.
Finally, the Northern Territory water policy will set time horizons for planning, outline what Territorians can expect with regard to transparency of decision-making and accountabilities, stakeholder participation rights, rights of appeal, and outline this government’s principles governing regulation.
This approach will require sound collaboration and involvement from the Power and Water Corporation, especially where the policy deals with pricing, return on investment, and financial matters. Some involvement from the EPA will also be required in developing the NT water policy.
Drawing on the approach the Department of Mines and Energy is adopting for developing an energy policy, a dedicated water directorate will be established to oversee the development of the Northern Territory water policy. Development of the policy will include widespread consultation with all Territorians before completion.
Concurrent with the development of a Northern Territory water policy, I will be establishing a new community advisory board to provide strategic advice on the responsible use of the Territory’s land and water assets. The Northern Territory catchments advisory committee, or NTCAC, is expected to address land and water issues across a range of river catchments throughout the Territory. It will enable community input into water policy development, as well as provide the opportunity for focused attention on emerging issues in specific catchments. I envisage that NTCAC will have a range of subcommittees which will allow for both a strategic view and the ability to engage at local catchment level. Water advisory committees will still have a specific function under the Water Act to provide me with advice on individual water allocation plans ...
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Katherine, if that is an appropriate point to break, would like to continue after lunch?
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I seek to continue after lunch, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Debate suspended.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Member for Port Darwin
Mrs LAMBLEY (Health): Madam Speaker, I move that leave of absence for the member for Port Darwin be granted from now until the close of parliament tomorrow night. He is attending the Standing Council on Law and Justice in Sydney. During that time, I will be the Acting Leader of Government Business.
Leave granted.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Land Resource Management): Madam Speaker, the third component of this government’s approach to water management is water allocation planning and licensing.
The Water Act allows for the development and implementation of water allocation plans for declared water control districts. Drafting water allocation plans, including decisions around water allocation, can be contentious and involve extensive stakeholder engagement.
To be absolutely clear, it is this government’s intention to continue to utilise water advisory committees as a key community engagement strategy in the development of water allocation plans. These committees, in concert with the department’s professional water planners and water resource assessment experts, provide advice to me as the responsible minister. I consider that advice when declaring water allocation plans. However, it is the nature of water planning that not everyone will be happy all of the time. I will not wait for consensus from advisory committee members involved in the planning process before declaring plans.
Five water allocation plans, namely Oolloo, Mataranka, Berry Springs, the Great Artisan Basin, and the revised Alice Springs plan, are nearing completion but stakeholders are increasingly frustrated they have not been finalised.
Some months ago, I launched the draft Great Artisan Basin Water Allocation Plan and the revision of the Alice Springs Water Allocation Plan. This demonstrates we are getting the plans moving, giving the community, industry and government a blueprint to effectively and appropriately utilise and manage water resources for the development of the Territory.
Of note, based on community consultation, the cap on water use in the Alice Springs Water Allocation Plan has now been removed. This cap was originally put in place in an effort to extend the life of the ground water resource from the Roe Creek bore field. However, community consultation highlighted the success of Waterwise initiatives in Alice Springs in reducing water use, and the community’s vision for wise use of water resources to facilitate development in the southern region. This government is committed to enabling sustainable development, and is not in the business of putting any barriers or caps in the way of that development.
Work is also under way on the new water allocation plan for the Howard East water district in Darwin’s rural area. In the Howard East water district, current levels of ground water extraction may not be sustainable, and difficult decisions will have to be made to limit future extractions, or allow some degree of impact on the natural ecosystems that depend on ground water. Given the lack of understanding about the number of bores and the amounts extracted each year, some residents run a risk of their bores going dry later in the season if we experience a series of dry Wet Seasons.
Scientists think we are reaching a critical point in the Howard East water district where Darwin rural living and horticulture enterprise compete for the available ground water resource. Commercial bores are licensed and metered, but stock and domestic bores are not, and rural residents do not want them to be. The policy conundrum this leaves is we do not know how much ground water is being used, how many bores are drying up and, therefore, how much is available to allocate for future industry development. We also do not know if, or indeed when, local lagoons and wetlands are likely to be affected by higher aquifer drawdown rates. Without a sound evidence base, we are using educated guesses to manage these water resources.
A review of the Katherine Water Allocation Plan is also required and this may result in changes that would require negotiation and agreement with existing licence holders. Changes that need to be considered include the inclusion of surface water extractions in annual announced allocations, revision of restrictive trading rules, and the possibility of reallocation of water entitlements from licences that are not being fully utilised. I expect my department will commence the review early in 2014.
This government’s recent decision to not set aside an allocation of water in water allocation plans for future Indigenous use will now be implemented by the department in finalising draft plans for Mataranka and Oolloo.
Despite an outdated Water Act and the NT water policy being in its infancy, this government has moved to implement a comprehensive water allocation planning framework across the Territory as soon or as quickly as possible. However, water allocation plans are only part of the approach. The most important component of the water story for those interested in developing our Territory is water extraction licensing. That is the actual allocation of access entitlements for our water resources.
I first point out that it is the Controller of Water Resources who determines whether an application for ground or surface water extraction will be granted, not the minister. The Department of Land Resource Management considers the best information, data, records, and modelling available from reliable and reputable sources before providing advice to the Controller of Water Resources who then makes an informed decision about a licence application. The department has recently published an informative fact sheet on how the modelling works, using the Roper River catchment as an example, on its website.
Since becoming the minister responsible for water, it has come to my attention there was a huge backlog of water licence applications that were not progressed by the former department of NRETAS. As I said previously, the number of unprocessed water applications inherited by the new government and, ultimately, the Department of Land Resource Management was 75; which is disgraceful. These applications were made by legitimate business people seeking to get surety about their basic access to water in order to grow their businesses following the rules, and in good faith seeking a licence, only to find it may take years to get such a licence.
While we may not have an in-depth, detailed and explicit understanding of the effect extraction could have on a particular downstream wetland; and while we do not yet have a water allocation plan in place, in my opinion these are not valid reasons to ignore an entitlement to water resources for development, which is what happened under Labor.
In March this year, the Controller of Water Resources issued a ground water extraction licence to Lindsay and Tina MacFarlane to develop their farming enterprise in the Mataranka area. The MacFarlanes originally applied for a licence in 2005, some eight years ago. As the minister responsible for water resources, I find this type of delay unacceptable. Agricultural businesses in the Territory will not, and cannot, make significant investment decisions unless they have certainty about issues as fundamental as access to water.
The reasons for the delay in deciding on whether to issue the MacFarlanes a licence were varied and complicated, but the key was the length of time it took to develop a water allocation plan for the Mataranka district. Part of the delay in finalising the water allocation plan was an inability to resolve the issue of putting aside a proportion of the water resource for future Indigenous use – a strategic Indigenous reserve.
Another issue affecting the finalisation of the draft Mataranka Water Allocation Plan and, indeed, other draft plans, is the way in which the amount of water available to be allocated for users – that is, the average consumptive pool – is defined. Previously, the department used a very conservative approach to determining the consumptive pool, by looking at the past 100 years of rainfall and recharge data to predict the amount of water available for use over the next decade. As some will know, the past 40 years have been significantly wetter than the preceding 70 years. Average modelled recharged for the period 1900 to 1969 was 103 000 ML per year. Averaged modelled recharge for the period 1970 to 2008 was 180 000 ML per year. Basing the consumptive pool on the overall average of 100 years would not be particularly useful to either the dry period for the first 70 years or to the wetter period of the final 40 years.
Since releasing the draft water allocation plan for public comment, staff from the department and the Bureau of Meteorology have discussed the use of historic data in the modelling, with the Bureau of Meteorology advising the current climate weather is most likely to be similar to what has been experienced during the past 30 years. Based on these discussions, and in light of the department’s own ground water recharge data, modelling for the Mataranka water allocation planning approach has been reviewed and refined and now uses the past 30 years of recharge data rather than 100 years.
It is a fair bet that if the past 30 years had been drier than the 100-year average, some commentators, including members of the opposition, would be demanding that the department use the past 30-year period to model current climate variability rather than the full data set. This points to whether science or philosophy is the basis of decision-making. My department is guided by science.
In the current situation, it must be noted that ground water extraction licences are now issued for a period of 10 years; they are not issued in perpetuity. Hence, it should also be noted that using 30-year recharge data to determine an allocation for a 10-year licence is perfectly appropriate and reasonable. However, it is particularly important to note that at the end of each Wet Season, the Controller of Water Resources decides, based on rainfall, the model and recharge data, how much water will actually be allocated to each licence holder. This means that in wetter years more water is available to be allocated to licence entitlements and, in drier years, less water is allocated. In this way, the Controller of Water Resources is using an adaptive management approach to ensure that maximum water is provided for consumers while protecting the resource for future generations.
The department also has a policy of, in the Top End, allocating a maximum of 20% of water for use and leaving 80% for the environment. This approach is based on COAG’s National Water Initiative and acknowledges the lack of comprehensive science around the long-term impacts of ground water extraction on the environment. The draft Mataranka plan included a cap with only 15% of the 100-year average recharge of the aquifer made available for consumptive use, and 85% retained for the environment. Now that the department is using recharge figures calculated on rainfall for the past 30 years, as opposed to 100 years, and has lifted the cap from 15% to 20% of the annual average recharge for the aquifer, the effect has been to lift the average annual amount of water available for use – that is, the consumptive pool in the Mataranka region – from 19.5 GL 36 GL. This has effectively doubled the amount of water that can be allocated to develop agriculture and mining in the region.
Finally, with regard to the draft Mataranka water allocation plan, I was extremely concerned to learn that it did not, at any time, consider the impact of extraction on downstream uses in the Roper area such as the Ngukurr community and the new ilmenite mine. However, the new licence granted to Mr and Mrs MacFarlane does include new modelling specifically targeted at the potential impacts on water supplies for the ilmenite mine and the Ngukurr community. As publicly reported, the modelling used to grant this licence confirmed it would be necessary to reduce licence extractions in some years in order to protect the water supplies drawing from the Roper River downstream from Mataranka.
This is why the granted licence includes the condition that annual extractions will be set in accordance with annual announced allocations notified in writing by the Controller of Water Resources precisely for the purpose of protecting both environmental assets and water supplies along the Roper River.
The allocation of this water extraction licence was not an irresponsible push for water-based development at the expense of the environment as asserted by members opposite. Indeed, this is a conservative utilisation of the available water resources which will kick-start the regional economy with, according to the best contemporary science available, no long-term detrimental effects.
As I have just described, this government is using the water allocation planning and licencing framework to underpin sustainable use of the Territory’s water resources. We are freeing up our water resources by unclogging the water licensing system and making sensible policy decisions to support development, as well as protect our precious ecosystems.
Under this government, there has been a change of approach and the Territory, and its water resources, are open for business. The Country Liberals government will actively and proudly promote agricultural development through the timely, pragmatic, and balanced allocation of the available water resource. While we are committed to water allocation planning as a principle underpinning development, we are conscious of the protracted lead times these plans require, and will no long hold back development while they are in draft.
Rather than hold up development while water allocation plans are under development, we are issuing licences as if they were finalised, but with caveats. Our approach is to use the best science, computer modelling and consideration of community input to inform decisions about extraction licences irrespective of water allocation plan formulation.
Recently issued licences are subject to an annual announced allocation each year derived from modelling following each Wet Season. In this way we will adaptively manage the resource. It is imperative that we have a sound base for making these important decisions about use of our water resources, and we have systems in place to detect any impacts on our natural system.
The Department of Land Resource Management has statutory responsibility for assessing the Territory’s water resources. Section 34 of the Water Act states quote:
Ground water assessment has been the priority of the Department of Land Resource Management’s water resource investigations over the past decade.
The department also maintains a network of gauging stations which continuously measure river heights. Staff periodically attend these sites to measure river flows which change from season to season and year to year. However, much more needs to be done to ensure a sound base for decisions with respect to managing the Territory’s water resources.
Management of the Territory’s water resources needs to balance the needs of the community, industry, and the environment. This is an extremely difficult and often fraught public policy challenge. Despite these challenges and the extensive work which needs to be done to enable this government’s vision for the wise use of our land and water resources for the economic development and wellbeing of all Territorians, there are a number of exciting opportunities on the horizon. Ord Stage 3 is one such opportunity and is an exciting component to the Territory water resource story, and I hope to be able to report significant progress on this in the coming months.
This government is also keen to revisit opportunities to increase water availability for development through surface water storage. This will include looking at the notion of harvesting flood waters from rivers and storing this water off stream to augment the ground water resource. The successful harvesting of flood water would significantly increase the potential for irrigated agriculture development in the Top End.
I make it clear that this government is not considering damming major rivers like the Daly. Off-stream storage, in this context, is the diversion or pumping of post-peak flows to suitable land forms or constructed earthen tanks which can be harvested without affecting the river system.
Computer or hydrologic modelling of river flow and water harvesting options will provide an assessment of the long-term availability of harvested water for agricultural production, and implications for downstream river, floodplain, and estuarine environments. Modelling will allow different harvesting scenarios to be explored under a range of Wet Season rainfall regimes, and provide a basis for defining agricultural development potential by developers. Importantly, the program will specifically link surface water assessment with geographical proximity to soils with agricultural potential.
Since 1998, a range of desktop studies have broadly outlined the potential for significant post-peak flood flows to be harvested and stored off stream. These studies indicate that up to 100 000 ha of irrigated development could be possible in Top End catchments based on surface water harvest alone. Further work needs to be done to investigate this potentially very exciting opportunity.
As I said at the beginning of this statement, the Territory’s future and our children’s future relies on the wise use of our land and water resources for the economic development and wellbeing of all Territorians. In order to sustainably manage our water resources, the Country Liberals government is (1) establishing a sound legislative base; (2) developing an overarching water policy for the Territory; (3) implementing an appropriate water allocation and water licensing framework; and (4) ensuring scientific monitoring and research is there to provide an evidence base for adaptive water management.
Using this approach, the Country Liberals government is opening up the Territory for development and ensuring enough water to support our natural ecosystems and our livelihoods. I look forward to reporting on our progress in developing and implementing this approach in the years ahead.
Madam Speaker, I move that the statement be noted.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, in delivering his statement today, the Minister for Land Resource Management said with a straight face:
I find that hard to believe. The minister is either delusional, hypocritical, or possibly both.
Everyone knows the arrogance and failure to consult with legitimate stakeholders is a hallmark of CLP policy in development and decision-making. CLP mates come first, everyone else comes last. There is no clearer example of this arrogance than the decision to award a water extraction licence to the CLP candidate for Lingiari in March this year. Documents tabled in this House in the August sittings clearly indicate the minister was directly involved in the decision to award the licence.
In March this year, the CLP candidate for Lingiari and her husband were granted a water extraction licence for 5800 ML from the Tindall Limestone Aquifer. The amount available for extraction under the licence exceeds the combined total of the existing 15 licences for this aquifer – 15 times the combined total of the other licences. These existing licences are renewed on an annual basis because the licensees have agreed to accept smaller allocations whilst they are engaged in the development of a water allocation plan for the Tindall Limestone Aquifer, Mataranka.
The MacFarlane’s licence is for 10 years. It is a huge amount of water for a very long time. It threw out the work of the local advisory group that had been working with a two- to three-year plan. In the process of awarding the licence, the estimated sustainable yield from the aquifer increased from 19 500 ML per year to 36 000 ML per year. Based on instruments published in the Gazette between 7 November 2012 and 25 March 2013, the estimated sustainable yield of the aquifer increased by 16 500 ML per year. That is a very large amount of water to suddenly find and then to decide to quickly give away.
Water is a precious resource. It sustains ecosystems, supports agriculture, primary production, and recreation. It is essential to our survival on this planet. Representations from concerned individuals and organisations such as other licensees in the region, the North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance, AFANT, the Environment Centre, the Power and Water Corporation, and the Mataranka Traditional Owner Water Allocation Reference Group were either ignored or dismissed. The decision to award the licence was widely criticised in the media and by organisations whose legitimate interests were ignored in favour of the interests of the CLP candidate for Lingiari.
CLP ministers were up to their necks in it. This is why they will not release the documents in relation to this decision. If they have nothing to hide, I call on the minister again to release all the documents. We have asked for them under FOI, and they have been denied. Show us the documents. The minister told us ‘this is not a government which dares to be arrogant’. These words will haunt the minister well into the future. Why? The CLP is always arrogant and cannot be trusted to allocate the Territory’s valuable resources in the interests of the common good.
As I said, water is very precious; it sustains our ecosystem and supports agriculture. However, it is also a financially valuable resource, and that is what appeals to the CLP. Although the government has declined to release the actual submissions – another example of their flippant interpretation of their promise to Territorians to be open and accountable – we saw in documents tabled in the House in August that a memo to the Minister for Land Resource Management highlighted some substantial concerns and issues in relation to the licence awarded to the CLP candidate for Lingiari. The memo of 14 December 2012 to the minister stated:
Modelling was undertaken, and it indicated there would be very substantial impacts on the Elsey National Park and the Roper River as a direct consequence of the water extraction licence for 5800 ML per year. It clearly showed the beautiful ecosystems in the Roper River and the Mataranka areas would suffer. A memo from the Water Resources Planner Darwin outlined these very substantial adverse ecological impacts of the volume of water granted to the MacFarlanes under the licence. Based on this document, it is more than reasonable to conclude that the licence should not have been granted to the CLP candidate for Lingiari and her husband. But, no, we saw the allocation made. This is how the CLP government treats our precious assets.
I turn to the legitimate interests of all stakeholders shortly, but at the outset I want to provide a strong focus on the rights and expectations of Indigenous Territorians. Their representative organisations and traditional owners access water for commercial and cultural use. The minister’s attitude to strategic Indigenous reserves misses the point. Many Indigenous groups are not yet ready to use the water for commercial purposes, but it is important to ensure they can access the water for enterprise development in the future. I wonder if this has been spoken about with the bush members.
Without an Indigenous reserve it will be too expensive for most Indigenous groups to buy into the water market in the future. Strategic Indigenous reserves are one way to create opportunities for future generations before all the water is allocated from the consumptive pools.
It is time for the Chief Minister to show us some leadership. The minister is obviously not consulting the bush colleagues because I find it hard to believe they would accept this. How can we talk about constant development opportunities for Indigenous Territorians to get off welfare? Chief Minister, this is your chance to overturn the minister’s decision to not recognise the benefits of strategic Indigenous reserves. If you have doubts this is from me, ask the CEO of NAILSMA, Mr Joe Morrison, to brief your Cabinet and backbenchers.
The minister stated today that he has asked his department to review the Water Act with the intention of aligning it to the National Water Initiative: a COAG-agreed set of objectives and principles designed to improve management practice across Australia. No one on this side of the House would object if this was the true strategic intent of the review. But when the minister reaffirmed his intention to exclude the strategic Indigenous reserves from the water allocation plans, he gave the game away. The minister does not respect the rights of Indigenous Territorians, and the bush members opposite should stand up and speak to him about it. The minister said he will ask his agency to develop the water policy with the intention of aligning the legislation to the National Water Initiative. Does he have the courage to guarantee Territorians today in this House that the water policy will accord and align with the nationally agreed to water initiatives?
They could inform such representations by recourse to the National Water Initiative which the minister said is central to his review of the NT Water Act. Regarding Indigenous access, the National Water Commission said:
Does the minister understand that or is it an inconvenient truth? The commission went on to state:
If the minister was fair dinkum about his alignment of the Water Act in the Territory with the National Water Initiative, he would not defer consideration of a policy of the strategic Indigenous reserves for three years.
Instead, he has encouraged ‘a first-in, best-dressed’ approach to water allocations which has seen additional applications for very significant water volumes from both the Tindall Limestone Aquifer, Mataranka and the Oolloo aquifer. It is possible that all the water from the relevant consumptive pools will be allocated before the review of strategic Indigenous reserves is completed. Does that not cause alarm amongst the Indigenous and bush members opposite? We know that members opposite will not stand up for the rights of communities and traditional owners in the Mataranka, gulf region and the Douglas Daly region. We have seen this.
On this side of the House, we have been strong advocates for the strategic Indigenous reserves, but members opposite have run dead on the issue. Although they claim to support Indigenous economic development, when it comes to Indigenous water rights, this does not seem to be on the agenda.
This was confirmed by the minister’s cynicisms when he stated today:
Water is a precious resource as it sustains our ecosystems, supports agriculture and primary production, and provides opportunities and recreation. It is a reasonable expectation of Territorians that decisions made by the government on the utilisation of this precious water resource should be based on good science, transparent process and be free from political influence, something we have not seen of late.
Under his new-found approach to transparency and accountability, the minister told us he will collaborate with organisations such as the Power and Water Corporation, but this has not been the case. Power and Water expressed concerns about the impact of the extraction licence awarded to the MacFarlanes on the quality of domestic water at Ngukurr. Those concerns were ignored.
Has the member for Arnhem had a briefing? We have already seen Ngukurr have its water supply turned off because the salinity levels got too high. This will happen more in the future with this water extraction licence being granted ...
Mr Westra van Holthe: You need to read the statement a bit better, member for Nightcliff.
Ms FYLES: I have read it; I have looked at the science.
We have a major Indigenous Territory community which already had its water turned off because salinity levels were too high, yet we still gave the licence for more water.
AFANT has also expressed concern around the impact of the MacFarlane’s water extraction licence. In its Your Rivers at Risk Mataranka – Tindall fact sheet, with respect to the volume of water allocated under the licence, AFANT stated:
Why did the minister also ignore AFANT’s concerns? It is because he and his Cabinet colleagues were determined to allocate a valuable public resource to a CLP mate. Does the minister have the courage to categorically rule out damming the major Top End rivers used for recreational fishing – the Daly, the Roper and other major rivers? What does off-stream water storage mean? These are more questions from this statement.
Broad-scale use of existing wetlands and other low lying areas to store water – how will that disturbance to the natural water systems be managed and overseen? You might laugh and think it is comical, but these are serious environmental considerations. What environmental assessments will be required, or is that just an unnecessary barrier to development? How will this be applied in areas valued for recreational fishing or high-value wetlands?
There is already widespread concern about this licence in the community generally, and amongst those who rely on the value of the sustained use of the Tindall limestone aquifer. The community fears the CLP water allocation policies because the minister informed us today he will be establishing a new community advisory body to provide strategic advice on the responsible use of the Territory’s land and water assets.
Given the minister’s and government’s track record on sustainable development, Territorians could be forgiven for looking at this initiative with some scepticism. Presumably, the advisory committee will be handpicked by the minister. We did not see any details, any time frame, or any requirements of the members of the committee.
The statement says water allocation will be underpinned by science. Whose science? What science? What data? Will we see the cherry picking of science as we saw with the MacFarlane’s application again?
In any event, we have seen previously unwelcome advice on scientific research, or it is just simply ignored when it suits the government to do so, even when the consequences will impact adversely on the Territory’s unique environment and ecology.
The ministerial statement today said they will not have caps on water extraction, have removed a cap on the Alice Springs ground water and that savings measures have worked. Is that forever? What about continued growth, the future climate, rain variability? It raises many questions. It is fantastic to make these statements, but they are not backed up. The government will not put barriers or caps in the way of sustainable development, but where is the ongoing monitoring and reporting?
No one could object to the utilisation of water resources to support sustainable development, but in regard to the interests of Territorians, the CLP’s record shows it cannot be trusted to properly manage our precious water resources. It is important to discuss water allocation in the parliament, but it is too little too late, trying to backtrack once a huge allocation has been made. It is like you have been trying to justify the science and bringing this forward to justify it to yourselves that it is okay.
We know the government has refused to release 78 pages of documentation under freedom of information in relation to the MacFarlane’s licence, including 13 pages of correspondence between the CLP elected members and the Water Controller. A good start would be to release these documents. Earn the trust of Territorians. We know the basis for this decision is the documents might create an unnecessary debate. What a cop out. What a cover up. You claim you have no involvement, but you wrote many letters which you are hiding. It is not unnecessary debate, it is gagged debate. You do not want Territorians to know the truth.
In his statement today, the minister was critical of the former Labor government saying it lacked the intelligence and courage to tackle water issues. What about the courage of the public servants who stood their ground on the Mataranka water allocation bid? The Supreme Court found no fault with public servants’ actions or conduct. What about the intelligence of members of the water advisory councils and the public servants who are advising government? We did not go shopping around for science or data to retrofit our water allocation decisions like you did.
There must be questions raised in relation to Alice Springs about the Howard East bore field. It is already at capacity and you said difficult decisions will have to be made to limit future extractions. Is that not indicating there might possibly be a cap or some degree of impact on our natural ecosystems that depend on …
Mr Westra van Holthe: Howard Springs is not in Alice Springs.
Ms FYLES: I did not say that.
Mr Westra van Holthe: I thought you did.
Ms FYLES: Is that not allowing the possibility for some impact on our natural ecosystems that depend on ground water? Who pays for the ongoing monitoring and measuring of ground water usage in areas? Will water pricing rather than a cap be used as a water conservation measure?
The minister claimed the review is about creating a water market and water pricing involving Power and Water. Is that to help increase the value of Power and Water for eventual sale? There are many questions. Are we creating a market to benefit existing water rights holders by making their land more valuable?
This ministerial statement is silent on mining and how these two will work together. It is silent on the impact of fracking on ground water. Current technology with fracking uses huge amounts of ground water for each fracking event. There are many questions in that space to do with mining and water usage.
Will the new community advisory boards be advertised? How will members be selected? What competencies or experience will members require? They are some of the questions you may be able to provide us with details on when you wrap up the debate. What does the government want? Who are you looking for in this space? Will organisations such as NAILSMA be invited, or are they now on the other side? Is this another case of an advisory group, jobs for the boys, and opinions you want to hear? What time line has the minister established for the development of the water policy? How can the community contribute and monitor these policy developments? These are just some of the questions that come to mind from reading the statement. It raises possibly more questions than answers – no time line, no detail.
Madam Speaker, in the minister’s first speech in the parliament as a minister, he spoke about his personal commitment to transparency and accountability, but in one of his earliest decisions as a minister he failed on both accounts. I feel this speech today is just dressing to put the MacFarlane decision behind you. However, I do not think Territorians will do that. It will not go away; this will be an issue that will plague your government. This is an issue which represents the decisions your government has made. .
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I was not going to say too much about this statement, but I have decided I will after hearing the biggest load of misinformation ever come across in a speech. For the last 15 years I have lived at the Daly. For the last 10 or 11 years I have been on the Daly River Management Advisory Committee and, prior to that, the community reference group. I advise the member for Nightcliff she ought to read some of the minutes of that group and find out what they did for those 10 years under Labor. She may learn something, because much of what she just came out with was total rubbish. She is ill-informed, and I am not too sure where she gets her information.
I am glad to see this statement today, but I want to go back a bit through history. About 10 years ago, the Labor government introduced some land clearing guidelines. I was very vocal against those guidelines, the reason being that we had legislation introduced and no resources put into the management of it by the government. We had to pull resources from elsewhere. It was pulled from weeds, but that led to the establishment of the community reference group.
I was nominated to be on that reference group as a tourism representative from the Daly. One of the first conclusions that group came to was that land clearing was not the issue, it was water. Water! The Labor government was not willing to address the issue of water, nor did it address that issue for the whole time I sat on that committee.
The other interesting thing is the member for Nightcliff raised damming of the Daly. One of the things that shocked me at the first meeting I went to with that reference group was that the previous Chief Minister, Clare Martin, had ranted and raved in parliament about how she would never, ever, dam the Daly. Everyone presumed that statement meant the whole of the Daly catchment. It did not. It excluded the Douglas, the Fergusson, the Katherine, the Fish, the Florina, the whole lot. For those people over there to say, ‘We are open and transparent’ – what a load of rubbish!
The next thing was the recommendations of that community reference group talked about catchment management and catchment advisory. Were any of those recommendations picked up? No, they were not! All we got was another reference group under the name of the Daly River Management Advisory Committee. How were people appointed? They advertised and asked who would like to be on it. Who picked them? The minister!
The other issue I would like to talk about regarding the Daly River Management Advisory Committee is a meeting of this group I attended in Katherine at one stage. Standing up in front of us were people from the water division – I am not too sure of which department it was at the time – who said they were actively encouraging people not to submit water applications.
Of course, I got quite upset about this and asked why they we doing such a thing. The response was they had a problem with the legislation. My question was, ‘Why don’t we go back to the government and ask them to alter the legislation?’ They said the government was not willing to do it.
Madam Speaker, the reason I spoke is that I did not like what the member for Nightcliff was saying as it was ill-informed, and I wanted to point out some of the facts. I am happy the minister is addressing the water issue and I am glad the act will be reviewed. I am glad we are setting up a catchment advisory committee, not this ‘focus’ rubbish about areas of the Daly excluding all these feeding rivers. I can assure you we are not going to dam the Daly, or any of its feeder rivers. I am willing to say it, Clare Martin could not.
Ms ANDERSON (Namatjira): Madam Speaker, I support my colleague’s statement to this House. I congratulate the minister and the government for its great vision, because it takes guts and vision. This government has a vision for the future of the Northern Territory, of how to grow the Northern Territory. We are not just talking about horticulture, Indigenous people, or non-Indigenous people. It is a driver. As I said yesterday, it is a journey of taking all Territorians forward and of planning for the future.
In saying that, I quote from the minister’s statement:
The Country Liberal Party is not just thinking about today or tomorrow, next week or next month; it has a future plan for our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren, and what they can achieve through the vision of the Country Liberal Party.
The minister is an active minister, a minister who lives in the area we are talking about and who has a plan and a vision. Collectively, with his Cabinet colleagues, he has come up with something that is viable, interesting and a real journey to take Territorians forward.
I pick up on something the member for Nightcliff said about Indigenous people, which I was shocked to hear from someone who lives in Nightcliff who had probably never seen an Aboriginal person until she met her colleagues in the Labor Party and knows nothing about Tjukurpa Indigenous culture, Indigenous dreaming, and where the cultures interact and meet.
If you look at the nomadic lifestyle of Indigenous people long before we were all born, they were quite good preservers of water. They roamed as nomads from waterhole to waterhole. They drank from those waterholes and they never lived long at those waterholes for fear of contaminating the water; they kept moving. They had their baths and showers when it rained, when the water was plentiful. They were very observant. I connect the observant behaviour of Indigenous people to the current Country Liberal Party and see how the two connect in observing what we need to in growing the Northern Territory and bringing farmers and miners together. We will all benefit from a journey through policy and decision-making.
For her information, I would like to tell the member for Nightcliff I am water dreaming. I come from Walpa the Aboriginal word for water, and my dreamings are Walukulangku the four greatest Aboriginal totems of water. When you identify or need to talk about Aboriginal issues, then you need to talk from the perspective of how that originates and how we connect to that land. Those stories determine who we are, where we belong, how our journey begins, how our journey ends and, in that journey, how we are related to everybody. You can see through the simplicity of our totems how it connects to exactly what we are doing.
We talk about aquifers, how the Oolloo is connected to other aquifers at Tindall, and how it is all interconnected to rivers, like the member for Daly said. It is not just from one catchment but from many rivers and catchments. It is fantastic to put the two together.
This government has a vision of how to grow the Northern Territory. It has a vision of how to move all Territorians forward. This is not a separatist government. It is not a government that looks at one group of people in insolation and grows that one group of people, or deprives that one group of people. It is a government that is bringing all Territorians – black, white, Greek, Italian, French, whatever multicultural groups we have living in the Northern Territory. We are about driving the economy. We are determined to make sure all our drivers, our policies, are moving all Territorians forward.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the fantastic thing about the Country Liberal Party is it is focused on bringing all Territorians on this journey with us. We are not prepared to leave anyone behind. We are not prepared to leave anyone on the side and walk straight past them, or jump over them. This is a government that will drive through our policy initiatives which will encourage anybody to come and develop in the Northern Territory. We are a government that will take all Territorians forward.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak on the Minister for Primary Industry and Land Resource Management’s statement about water.
It is interesting reflecting on Question Time today and some of the concerns raised by the Labor opposition about water and water allocation, and how dare we use a resource of the Northern Territory, particularly as the frame of this debate is strategic Indigenous reserves over water and whether that is a rights-based issue or an economics-based issue.
At the outset, one might think that reserving water for use by Aboriginal Territorians is the right thing to do, and on the surface it is. However, we have to put in place the assessment of the amount of surface water and ground water in those reservations, and think in the context that we do not want to lock up natural resources that are recharged and renewed, because aquifers renew and surface water comes back on a cyclical basis. We need to ensure those assets and resources are available for people to utilise to become productive, grow things, and build jobs.
We talk here about getting people off welfare. You cannot get people off welfare if there are no jobs. We were in the member for Arnhem’s electorate two months ago talking to the people of Ngukurr about economic development and opportunities. That is where I learnt about the great success of our Western Desert, the number of local people who are working there and the opportunity to expand that. I spoke with the member for Arnhem about what the other opportunities there are, because a couple of the old men from Ngukurr came to me and said, ‘Can you come out? We want economic development.’ We spoke about the opportunity around farming and what could be done. I cannot remember his name, member for Arnhem, but one old man said, ‘I have 297 km of land. We would be very interested in farming that. Can we turn that into farm land?’ I said …
Ms Lee: Mr Rogers.
Mr GILES: Mr Rogers. I said, ‘We would be very keen to investigate it’. You cannot say yes straightaway because you give people false hope. We need to look at the surface water, the underground water, what water is available in the Roper and Wilton, and how you could access that. We are conducting research through the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries to identify the type of crops that could be grown there. Are they crops that could support food security for the Roper region of the Northern Territory of Australia or Asia? We are in a world market. We have to look after ourselves first, but can we contribute to other people’s food security? That work is continuing through the minister for Primary Industry’s department.
It is the same type of work we are undertaking with the Tiwis. The Tiwis have said they want more land available. I believe 30 000 ha at the moment is available for forestry, which employs many people – a great opportunity there. There are good things to come in the near future, member for Arafura. They are keen to farm another 10 000 ha, and we are keen help facilitate that. We are not out there telling people what to do; we will not do that. It is not a top-down approach; it is about offering that opportunity to see what can be done. If we are to farm that 10 000 ha – whether to grow trees for plantation timber for pulp or to grow pineapples, which is an opportunity coming up at the moment and looks pretty good, or for growing anything – you need access to water.
The importance of this statement is to be able to, from our point, parochially advance the opportunity around utilising water for economic development to create jobs. If we do not and we lock it up with the right space movement of the Labor Party and the Labor opposition, all we do is stymie development. That is what we saw over the last eleven-and-a-half years of the former Labor government: that development opportunity not happening.
It was interesting when we went over for the launch of the Tiwi ferry on 16 September, if memory serves me correctly, member for Arafura. The people there were so excited about the ferry coming back and were asking, ‘What is the next thing?’ You are not going to have 100% of the population, but every person who spoke to me asked, ‘What is the next thing? When can we have a hotel? When can we have our roads done so we can support the wood chip getting out? How can you facilitate the Ezion port development? What can you do to support farm growth?’ They are essential elements in life and one of those is water and how to make that happen.
We had a question today from the member for Nhulunbuy – null and void – about permits being a trade barrier. I have had this conversation with the Tiwi people since 2007 when I spoke about the issues around permits. A prime example is if we want people to go to Tiwi, to move from the jetty to the shopping centre, to the art and culture centre, to a potential tourism destination or to the forestry project, you have to utilise those main access arterial routes without the need for a permit. It is not saying the permit system is bad, but the time to get the permit is a restraint to trade. You need to have the free flow of goods and services to support any broad economic advancement approach. That is the area we are driving.
This is not just about the bush when talking about water allocation. Darwin is, in a broad way, a large service centre, as an urban capital city of the Territory, for the rest of the Northern Territory. Many of the mines throughout the Northern Territory, much of the pastoral sector, much of the housing development and land release – all the economic drivers in the Northern Territory – have a core base in Darwin, and Darwin has become a service centre. More agricultural, mining and horticultural development creates jobs for people in Darwin and the northern suburbs.
You have people like the members for Nightcliff and Fannie Bay, and the incoherent and unintelligible member for Johnston, who are fighting against development in the regions. However, the regions give jobs to the people who live in Darwin and the regions as well. There is the fly-in fly-out approach or the drive-in drive-out approach. Developing jobs at Mataranka is about supporting Darwin as well as supporting Mataranka. It is about supporting the service station in Katherine as people drive up and down, and supporting the roadhouse at Emerald Springs and the lovely little outdoor area they have there where you can have lunch or dinner.
This is about jobs for all Territorians, not just the bush. That is where the difference in the focus is from this government to the previous government. They were more interested in pork-barrelling some strategic seats, not delivering lifelong outcomes and a strategic vision and direction for the Territory. We want to develop the whole of the Territory. It is not easy, it is a challenge.
The member for Stuart has a vast area in the bottom half of her electorate. Many people ask me, ‘What can you do out there?’ There are major opportunities. You have to look at what the natural resource is. Sometimes that is labour. Some people are fortunate, like those in the member for Namatjira’s electorate at Uluru, a prime tourism destination. Some people have, like in the member for Arafura’s electorate, a big uranium deposit with an ERA mine. It creates jobs and stimulates economic opportunity. Some people have a range of different things.
What you need to do – and I say this to all members – is look at what your natural resource is and how you develop it? It could be a Telstra call centre at Papunya. There is no reason why people at Papunya could not operate a national call centre operation. Think outside the square.
It is hard for us to come forward with 73 prescribed communities, if you want to measure communities in that numerical fashion, or the 1000 discrete communities in the Northern Territory, including homelands, and give everyone an economic solution straightaway. You cannot do it. Logistically, you cannot. All we can say is we are prepared to provide economic development and growth opportunities to anyone who comes forward. We are not going to tell you what to do. We will work with you, like on the Tiwis and in Ngukurr, Wadeye, Blue Mud Bay and Groote. We would like to do it in Gove, but there is a really bad member out there …
Mr Tollner: She stops everything.
Mr GILES: She does stops anything. She complains, she does not lead her electorate to drive change ...
Mr Westra van Holthe: The member for not on board?
Mr GILES: Not on board, null and void.
I reflect back. I know we are talking about water, but we are talking about regional development as a capacity issue. At the recent meeting we had in Gove a few weeks ago with the Regional Development Committee, we spoke about Gove and I explained everything I had explained to the member for Nhulunbuy who had not relayed that to her electorate. I explained it so people understood where things were at, and they were very happy to have that information Lynne Walker never passed on. We spoke about the other opportunities for regional development.
I will give you a prime example of a bad local member. The Regional Development Committee spoke about improving the road between Gove and Gapuwiyak. I am not sure of the exact distance of that road; I think it is 100 km-and-something. The conversation was that if we improve that road, Gapuwiyak and all of the outstations along the way and around the district have an opportunity to get into town for better shopping with less wear and tear of cars, fewer motor accidents, fewer deaths – all those sort of things. They asked me, ‘Why are we never considered for the road?’ I said, ‘I have sat in parliament for five years and have been a candidate in Lingiari before, and never once have I heard the current member for Nhulunbuy, or the previous member, talk about doing anything on that road’. I have never heard the member for Nhulunbuy talk about fixing the road between Gove and Gapuwiyak. I have never heard that. I told them that and they said …
Mr Westra van Holthe: Never heard her talk about gas to Gove either.
Mr GILES: No, she did not. However, that road capacity is a regional development. That connects people and provides better access for trade and so forth, and reduction of cost-of-living expenses for communities, and outstation and homeland residents ...
Ms Lee: No, but she will complain to everyone in Gapuwiyak about it.
Mr GILES: Oh, yes, she will complain and dog whistle, but she has never raised that in here. That is a key aspect of regional development in that electorate for the East Arnhem region that would provide massive benefits for those communities, outstations and homeland residents.
I said, ‘I am sorry, I cannot apologise on behalf of the member for Nhulunbuy, but I can commit to starting to raise it as an issue’, as we are doing right now in this Chamber.
I spoke to Industry Minister, Ian Macfarlane, and said, ‘Mate, we need to start thinking about this road. Let’s get it into the conversation. We cannot come out there with the money now but let’s get the conversation happening. Let’s start lobbying, because Lynne Walker just does not do her job.’ That is the aspect and the process we are taking forward with regional economic development.
Coming back to the statement about water allocation; at the moment, as I understand, there are around 70 applications for water in the Northern Territory. Seventy people have applied to access water so they can undertake economic development activities: growing tomatoes, watermelons whatever it may be. The issue when we first came into government was there was a list this high of applications which had never been considered because Labor was too scared to allocate water because of their Green preference deal in an election. We did not get the economic development stuff, they just sat on it.
There are all these stories about Tina MacFarlane at Mataranka. They applied in 2005, and in 2013 they got their licence. That is eight years later. Just think of all the economic development which could have happened. We are not going to throw the baby out with the bath water, but we want to create jobs and start punching above our weight from the Northern Territory’s point of view. There are people listening and watching.
The way the Northern Territory government is funded, 80% of our budget comes from the federal government. We get a formula called horizontal fiscal equalisation where, roughly speaking, for every dollar we put in, we get $5 back through the GST revenue.
We have to start lifting our contribution up to get better economics out of the budgetary process. To do that, you start increasing your GDP and economic growth, and you invest in things like allocating water, using those resources and creating jobs. It brings up economic prosperity, and people in Fannie Bay, Johnston and Nightcliff will start getting more jobs. People in Barkly might get a job. I know the member for Barkly did not provide any economic solutions for Barkly in eleven-and-a-half years of government. The poor people in Tennant Creek are thinking, ‘What is our future?’ The only thing that can be raised is a clown uniform, Hector the Cat, and not much else. We need to be able to provide economic solutions to drive this in the regions and get real solutions. We will talk to Tennant Creek and the Barkly about water allocation, farming and all of these things.
This was not a structured speech but a passionate plea to support the minister’s statement and the appropriate utilisation of water. Encourage him to work with the department, to speed up the application approval process and, where environmentally sound, get those water allocations out, get development on the ground, and help people get jobs in the regions and in towns to have economic growth in the Northern Territory. Then we can start saying the Northern Territory, and Darwin in particular, is not the next frontier but is today’s frontier.
The idea about the gateway to Asia and security into the sub-Asian regional context can be about now. This is how you make things happen. Minister, I give you my vote of confidence that what you are doing is exactly what needs to happen in the Northern Territory.
The reason I went through those figures this morning about increase in business confidence, increase in dwelling constructions and the leading economic data in the nation is that these things are happening because we are open for business and are doing the job across every portfolio. We will continue to do it. The naysayers on the other side who drove government to the highest debt per capita in this nation, way beyond Canberra’s debt level on a per capita basis …
Mr Westra van Holthe: Doubled.
Mr GILES: Nearly doubled, that is exactly right. Those naysayers can fight amongst themselves. We will deal with 70 water application licences, with building 2000 new units in Darwin in the next couple of years, and building new hotels. You can sit there and count your eight numbers, divide it into two, four and four. The member for Fannie Bay can race around and see if he can get that extra number because the Leader of the Opposition is not doing her job and standing up for the Territory.
Before I sit down, I will reflect on a thought I had during lunch. If the level of debate that comes out of the opposition continues, particularly throughout Questions Time, and when the member for Johnston tries to fight people in parliament, you bring us all down. You want to raise the level of debate and get economic growth here …
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Standing Order 62: offensive or unbecoming words. I ask that the member withdraw that, please.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: What were the words?
Mr VOWLES: Around fighting, looking for a fight, and stuff like that.
Mr Westra van Holthe: I think the member for Johnston could make a personal explanation if he disagrees.
Mr GILES: Yes, maybe. Mr Deputy Speaker, there were no offensive or unbecoming words. I reflected on the member for Johnston who earlier today offered out the member for Greatorex.
Normally, what you do in a debate is come up with a coherent voice and coherent arguments and try to debate your position, not offer people out, but …
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I ask for a ruling on the offensive or unbecoming words he reiterated and ask to have that withdrawn. I, at no stage, offered that the member for Greatorex meet outside, other than for a coffee.
Mr GILES: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker!
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not find any of the words offensive.
Mr GILES: A glass jaw. Offers someone outside then …
Mr Vowles: Oh, come on!
Mr GILES: If you do not believe you tried to do something like that, I suggest you make a personal statement.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the minister for his statement to the House. It was a very good statement. It shows we are driving economic growth and supporting the regions. All the statistical data for the Northern Territory around the country and the Asian region shows the Territory is the place to be. Keep it up, good job.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I heard this debate, and some of it was very light and some very shallow. Some of it poured scorn on people on this side, and some was more about filling in time rather than hitting this debate where it should be hit.
This is about water resources and, of course, water resources are important for many reasons in the Northern Territory. I support much of what the minister has said in his statement. We need water for the development of the Northern Territory; there is no doubt about that. One of the problems in a debate like this is when you say, ‘I have a different point of view’, you are, all of a sudden, put in the anti-development basket. It is a bit sad that is the case. The Chief Minister thinks that if you have some concerns about water allocation you are up with the greenies, or you do not support development. That is not the case.
I have said, probably since the first time I stood in this parliament, that primary industry was always looked at as the poor cousin when the Labor Party came into office. Even when they went out of office, I still felt it was the poor cousin.
I appreciate where the minister is coming from. He thinks we should develop the resources we have in the Territory, and we need to use water to provide the means for that development to occur. I have no argument with that at all, but we are living in a time when we should know the best way to develop that so it will be sustainable.
Sustainability is a word that gets thrown around a lot. I have said before that sustainability means we develop things today that do not cost future generations and taxpayers money to repair and fix the mistakes we have made by not thinking things through properly, and by making sure we do not wreck the environment, because sometimes there is irreparable damage, and sometimes it costs the taxpayer a great deal of money to fix. I try to at least put it into that context.
The minister knows my views on the Mataranka water allocation, and I will not go through all that again, except to say there seems to be this idea that the government has said, ‘We have more water’. They believe the Bureau of Meteorology figures allow them to use a different interpretation of how much water there will be, so there is a greater amount of water that can be handed out. We can argue about that. I have figures from CSIRO which dispute the methodology the Bureau of Meteorology is using, which is the basis of the government’s assessment of how much water is allowed to be allocated.
My concern is water should be given out for what is required, not necessarily what is asked for. People will ask for more than they need simply to cover themselves when there is a drought, or they see future advantage in having some extra water up their sleeve, whether they want to subdivide their land or we bring in water trading in the future. Of course, people will argue for more than they need.
The government, from my point of view, has said, ‘Wow, we have this big bucket of water, therefore, we will give out large amounts of water to people because we want the Territory to grow. We are open for business.’ That is my concern. My philosophy is that regardless of whether you have a big bucket of water you should use it wisely and carefully, and it should be given out according to what is needed, not what someone wants. It is like saying to someone, ‘Do you want a whole bag of lollies or do you just need a couple of lollies?’ Water should be given out carefully. It is a Territory resource we need to manage very carefully.
Statements made at that time by the Territory Farmers Association back up my opinion. They were statements from the water advisor at that time. I will use his name because he is from down south: Marty Miles, who was the modeller. He said in one case an incremental allocation depended on proven water supply given; however, a smaller licence had been issued previously and not yet used. When the Chief Minister spoke about people moving the Territory ahead, there were cases where the allocation had been given and not used. He is saying you need to have a development based on proof the person who wants a bigger licence has a record of achieving some development in agriculture or horticulture already, then top that up with a higher allocation. To me, that made good sense.
It was not about stifling agricultural development, it sent out the right message that water needs to be given out carefully based on, in some cases, the record the applicant has and the availability of water as well. The minister knows my views on that and I will not harp on that too much.
There is also the issue of Indigenous strategic water reserves. The minister said in his statement that we may look at it down the track, but there are two sides to this argument. Some of the side which supports an Indigenous strategic water reserve comes from the CLP. One is from the member for Daly, who said allocating water reserves would help generate economic development for traditional owners. He said he was on the Daly River water – it was not called that, it was called …
Mr Westra van Holthe: DRMAC – management advisory committee.
Mr WOOD: Yes, I will call it DRMAC, he was on that. He had a lot of experience, as he said in his speech, but he came out in strong support of traditional owners having water reserves allocated for future economic development. He told me one of the possibilities was using their allocation to supply the ilmenite mine. We know there are issues in relation to the ilmenite mine. If the Roper River dries up or goes below a certain level, that mine will have to stop production because it would not have a source of water.
Also, the member for Stuart, according to the ABC on 13 June, said she believed the government should set aside water reserves for the future economic development of Aboriginal communities. She said she supports the push for a different approach by the member for Daly, Gary Higgins. There is, obviously, a different opinion within the government over this matter. It is easy to say Aboriginal people are just like everybody else, but Aboriginal people need expertise to develop their land.
I heard the Chief Minister talk about developing land near Ngukurr. I have heard reports about them wanting to put a large banana farm in and, if that can be done, terrific. However, what was missing in that discussion – and, by the way you will need a lot of water if you grow bananas, as long as you can keep panama and banana freckle out of there – was that you will need people with qualifications. It is very nice to go to communities and say, ‘We think you can develop this and that’. I grew vegetables at Bathurst Island and am disappointed to hear the farm at Bathurst Island has folded. One of the problems with those enterprises was it was difficult to get people with the expertise to develop them and to stay with those communities. If you are to go hand in hand with some of these enterprises, you need to ensure Aboriginal people are given the opportunity to become qualified.
To grow bananas is not a case of putting a banana in the ground and hoping for the best. It is a seven-day-a-week job. If you go to a banana plantation in the Territory or interstate, you will find it is a science. It requires a scientific background with a good managerial knowledge to back it up, because it is not just a matter, as I said, of growing a plant in the ground and hoping it will be all okay.
I support what the Chief Minister said about the plans he is looking at: there needs to be the expertise. If you are to employ Aboriginal people you do not just employ them as labourers. We need to ensure they are helped to get the educational skills required to be able to manage those projects. That is what happened 30 or 40 years ago. Have we moved on from there?
If there are opportunities to use the water resources we have to develop economic enterprises through agriculture and horticulture on Aboriginal land, I support that. However, there are other things that need to go with it. It is easy to say that standing here; it is not so easy to do it in reality. Anyone who has been involved in primary industry, even if it is cattle, should look at horticulture today, and the issues the organic farms have in Batchelor. They have been battling cyclones and other things such as panama disease, and now they have copped banana freckle. Life is not that easy when it comes to agricultural development.
The government should not leave the issue of Indigenous water reserve for a three-year moratorium; it needs to be part of this current review. Organisations like NAILSMA should be part of that review. The Mataranka Indigenous Water Forum was held in 2011. Many Indigenous people turned up to be part of that forum, so there are people who are interested in this issue of water allocations.
It would be appropriate for this review to ensure organisations like NAILSMA are included and give their point of view, because it is obvious there are different viewpoints on this. It should not be brushed away for the next three years because, by that time, who knows whether the entitlement of the water allocation for the Mataranka area, for instance, would have been used.
There are some other issues the minister has come across. I applaud this statement because it has a huge amount in it, and there is no way I can cover many of the issues thoroughly in a short speech today.
One area which is missing in this review is water for domestic supply for towns and cities, especially Darwin. I live next to the Howard East bore field aquifer. The minister talked about it and I will get on to that later. We have an issue we cannot avoid, that being if the government is promoting the development of Darwin – I have heard people say, ‘One day we will have a million people in Darwin’. I have heard people talk about developing Cox Peninsula, Murrumujuk, Weddell – infill. That requires water, and the one thing Darwin does not have is great geographical features to provide water storage for a large population. We have the Darwin River Dam, which just happened to fit nicely in a valley, which has been there since approximately 1974. We have some plans for other dams such as the Warrai at Adelaide River, the Marrakai, which whether it ever happens is probably a point of debate because it is a fairly flat area. One of the problems with flat, wide water storages is high evaporation rates. A Finniss dam was proposed at one stage.
We have this issue of whether we can store enough water in the Darwin area to supply sufficient water for a large population. That is something that would need to be covered by this review. It may be something the Northern Territory Planning Commission should be looking at. You will have development in the Top End or the Darwin region if there is not an adequate supply of water.
I raise that as an issue which needs to be looked at. On one side there is water storage, on the other is the wise use of water. That is an area we also need to ensure we look at. We live in a climate where we have six months of Dry Season and high evaporation, and people will say we are the city that uses the most water per head of population. We probably do, but what other city in Australia has six months of dry weather and high evaporation, especially at this time of year? We need to be looking at water conservation as well as possible future water storage.
In relation to mining, I mentioned yesterday that you cannot have allocations for agriculture separate from allocations for mining. The two have to go together. When we are talking about water allocations, we have to be on a level playing field. We do not need allocations for mining being separate from allocations from agriculture. The two need to be combined – and I will take this up – as part of the catchment plan government is talking about. That is good because we should always look at rivers as a total catchment. We can look at sub-catchments, but rivers as total catchments. That is another area.
Yesterday, I mentioned the issue of fracking. There is no doubt this is an issue we cannot shy away from. At the 15 Mile community someone has put up posters along the fence, all anti-fracking. There have been meetings in the rural area against fracking. It is not an issue were you can just say, ‘They are a bunch of greenies, we will ignore them’. The government has a responsibility to ensure the science behind fracking is clearly put forward to the community to promote the proper safeguards that should be put in place if we are to undertake fracking.
People might say, in the case of shale fracking, it will be an issue of the aquifer becoming contaminated if not done properly. If the regulations and the processes for fracking are put into place, and there are people who ensure these processes are done, then the risk to aquifers is minimal. However, the issue is there are people saying this will happen; there are chemicals which will pollute.
I have looked at the science and have been doing as much reading as possible. If this is done properly, you would be pushing hard to say there will be a problem. Popular opinion can sometimes mean the issue is distorted, and governments then find it hard to get their point of view over. It is an important issue and it needs to be looked at from the review point of view.
I have been a supporter of the Ord River as well. Sometimes we have to be careful we do not emphasise the Ord too much from the point of view of advantages to the Northern Territory. It will be good because it will develop jobs in the Northern Territory. There is no doubt about that. However, because we have a line going down the centre between Western Australia and the Northern Territory, the reality is that people live and rely on a Western Australian town, Kununurra, and more than likely will use a Western Australian port.
We are part of Australia, and we sometimes need to think outside the Territory. It is an argument I have used about a certain nuclear waste facility in the Northern Territory. Sometimes we have to think of us as Australians, rather than get so parochial that it is only just about the Territory. The Ord is a classic example. The Ord is part of a scheme that will develop the north and hopefully set some examples for other parts of the Territory to be developed. If anyone has been near the Negri which feeds into Lake Argyle, you will see an enormous river on very similar soils to those found in the Ord River. I do not think you call them cracking clay, but they are similar ...
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I move that the member for Nelson be granted an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Katherine.
I have always said the development of the Northern Territory will rely on the good mapping of soils, the transport infrastructure that is required and the markets. You have to have a market otherwise it is no good growing anything. You need the skills, the labour force and the right climate. All of those things are part of the development.
Sometimes people can simplify it and say smooth words to say this is the Territory we are going to develop. You need to keep your feet on the ground and look at the reality. There have been many plans over many years to develop the Northern Territory. I first came to the Territory in 1970. I drove past the remains of Tipperary Station’s failed sorghum scheme, Scott Creek, Willaroo, Humpty Doo – the rice.
I went to the launch of the rice trails recently and listened to some of the original farmers talk about some of the issues, many of which were simply because of lack of knowledge. That is something we should not have today. We should have the knowledge to do things right when it comes to development.
The minister spoke about water harvesting. There is much argy-bargy, and you will have those triangle signs, ‘Don’t Dam the Daly’ and that type of stuff. If I take myself away from all of those political, sometimes hysterical, phrases, the reality is that many years ago there were plans to dam the Daly River at Mount Nancar which would be a great waste of time and effort because it would flood such an area. First of all, you would probably destroy some of the good agricultural land. It would be a flat, vast expanse of water, most of which would evaporate and would serve what purpose? I do not know! Those were the days when you had Tipperary and Willaroo Stations and those failures we have had.
We need to be clever. The ministers talk about water harvesting. I have always said there should also be the opportunity to look at small dams upstream on the upper catchments where you could combine a series of small dams to provide water. Sometimes, the political debate gets a bit overblown, but the reality is the amount of land in the Daly River catchment suitable for agricultural development is quite small. If you have lived on the Daly – the member for Daly has, and so have I. I pumped water out of the Daly to grow vegetables and have worked on Gary’s side to grow pastures. The reality is there is not a lot of arable land in the Daly region, as much as people think the whole place will be cleared. It is an enormous catchment and much of it is unsuitable for cleared agriculture. The Douglas Daly has potential. In fact, in some ways the lower Daly has less potential simply because when the Daly River floods everything is washed away. It has potential in the Dry Season for mangoes, tree crops and maybe forestry. However, the lower part of the Daly, when it floods that big piece of country, causes damage. Part of that damage is because we cleared some of the land.
I agree water harvesting needs to be looked at. There needs to much more research and development. How do you hold enough water you harvest in the Wet Season to supply enough water to develop horticulture and agriculture right through the Dry Season? You have to keep the water in the dam and stop evaporation, and that is not simple. Minister, you are spot on that they are the areas we need to look at.
I am interested to know when this review will start and who will be involved in it. If we are to have a review, will there be a set of guidelines? The minister included a range of things and mentioned it twice. Once, right at the end, he talked about establishing a sound legislative base, developing an overarching water policy, implementing an appropriate water allocation and water licencing framework, and ensuring the scientific monitoring and research needed to provide an evidence base is undertaken. He also mentioned other matters that will be taken into account which are also important. He talked about a Northern Territory water policy as well, and that all needs to be part of the review.
Two issues need to be looked at as well. Under the Water Act there has been some controversy. Members here over the last few years would know there was flooding in the rural area at Herbert in relation to a lagoon. The government at the time allowed that lagoon to be pumped until it was nearly dry. I complained about that and said you cannot pump a lagoon dry; you cannot even drain it because it is a waterway and it would need planning approval. The department said, ‘No, that is not a waterway’. A question was asked at the Estimates Committee, ‘What is a waterway?’ They said, ‘We will tell you which waterways in Litchfield Shire are waterways’.
About six months later they came back with a list of what they said were waterways. It all depended on the definition, which basically said if you have a water body and it has a defined outlet and inlet, it is a waterway. Anyone who knows lagoons in the rural area knows in many cases they do not have a defined in and out; the water flows across the land into the next low area. That is an area in the Water Act I hope the minister looks to redefine so areas like those lagoons are protected, otherwise, under the existing interpretation, they could be drained.
Another area is the Howard East bore field. The Howard East management group has not had a meeting for nearly two years – it might be over two years now – and I would like to know if the minister will take into account many of the things the management board looked at. The minister talked about the lack of science, and the amount of water removed by domestic, commercial and horticultural bores. Much of that information we already have, but I would like to know where the government is heading in relation to the Howard East bore field.
There has been talk about metering bores. The government would be on a hot potato if it said today it will charge people for water. I have memories of one of the biggest meetings ever in the rural area when a previous government tried to do that. However, it needs to look at the issue through science. It needs to give people who live in that area the results of that science. It needs to ensure it brings the people in the rural area along with any decisions it makes, otherwise it will end up not making decisions that can be put in place because people will just ignore them. You have to bring the community along if you are going to make decisions about the future of water resources in the Howard East bore field.
The Northern Territory Planning Commission, obviously, is looking at the rural area as a possible area for development. Those issues about the availability of water would keep some restraint on the development of that part of the Litchfield Council area.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement. As I said, I do not agree with the water allocations or the manner in which the water allocations were given. I am not against water allocations, but just because we have a large amount of water is not a reason for giving plenty of it away. We need to give it out based on science and on proof the person asking for the water has the ability to use it. We need to do that in a planned and sensible way based on the science. That is a far better way to do it.
Once again, I thank the minister for this statement which is an important statement. It is a pity there is so much in it that we cannot debate it a bit longer. However, I am interested to hear when this review will start from a public point of view, how will we know when it is starting and who will be able to be involved in the review.
Ms LEE (Arnhem): Mr Deputy Speaker, I also make a contribution to this debate. I will not stand here and throw whips all over the place, some of us are too good for that. I will read exactly what I have.
The issue of water resources in the Northern Territory in driving development is a complex matter to all, not only the pastoralists, but also Indigenous people in the Northern Territory. We have an opportunity to make sure the development, using our natural resources and water, is sustainable. In the Northern Territory, ground water accounts for around 90% of all water sources. The Territory’s main industries of pastoralism, tourism, horticulture, and mining mostly rely on ground water sources.
The NT Water Act allows for integrated agriculture and horticultural and consumptive usage, so basically everybody gets to use the water around here, even the people in towns, service stations – everybody has to use water. Water has to go somewhere; it cannot just sit in the ground.
It is also important that this government’s approach for the management of the Territory water resources is open to all users, which includes Indigenous people. It is especially important and appropriate that strategic Indigenous reserves be considered in the water allocation plans. I will elaborate on that. Indigenous people, with the background, education and understanding of water resources and the acts around the Northern Territory should have a seat at the table so they can have their say, instead of everybody else having a say on behalf of them. Let them have a say. That could be people who have always voted Labor, or people who voted Liberal. They could be Independents, The Greens, or anybody, as long as they have a say at the table.
My constituents need to have a well-mapped-out plan with this government. This will be a requirement for all Indigenous stakeholders within the Territory, considering the area of Aboriginal land which exists in the Northern Territory. This will ensure the ability for Indigenous landowners to undertake commercial operations is not compromised.
Since coming to government, we have had requests from a few communities, and I name one in my electorate, Ngukurr. Ngukurr wants to do everything. They want to start farming and have their own business. Not everyone wants to get into mining, so they are looking at other options. They are looking at how they can expand and grow their own community. Looking at the stats, Ngukurr is a growing population and is considered to be one of the growth towns. They have a really good understanding of that and they want to move forward. In the past they could not, because there was red tape everywhere.
They were not given an option to even consider using water, doing farming on their own land, or any such thing. They told me that. They said they never had the opportunity. Now, we have the right vision, have the right words, and want to move the people forward. I said, ‘That is what this government is about’. We want to move forward, not only everybody else, not just the pastoralists, but the Indigenous people. Not just the towns and the cities. I know Darwin is screaming for water because of the water restriction, but Indigenous people need to jump on the right boat and get on the ship right now. That is what we need to do.
We really need to look into this, and that is probably changing the act and looking at federal legislation where we actually stand with this. Go back to lobbying again. Are the former members from the other side of the table doing the lobbying about giving Indigenous people the rights to own the water? If you look at the native title in the Land Rights Act, Indigenous people only have rights to the land on top. The natural resources under that are under the Crown. It is in the National Library of Australia; you would know that if you look at the two acts, the Native Title Act and the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. It is not worth having all this assumption about being an Aboriginal saviour if you do not understand those two acts and what rights we have. Then you can speak on our behalf, for the people.
Our water is combined with culture, land and everything else. At Mataranka alone, scientists discovered two more springs that had never been discovered until recently, but you are only talking about one spring. They have no idea. They cannot make an assumption about how much water is under the water table because two other springs were discovered recently. Everybody is jumping up and down about one spring. They do not know which direction that spring is going or where it is coming out; whether it comes out in Western Australia or Queensland.
This government’s aim is to move forward and move our people with us to give them the right to get out there farming and have the same aspirations as any other Australian. This will require a long-term strategic approach to water management and licence allocation because we cannot have one mob going up and the Indigenous people just slowly coming up. We have to keep it balanced. You talk about moving Indigenous people forward. Well, speak in the middle about Indigenous people because it is pretty sensitive to the mob out there. If they sat in this gallery and listened to half of the stuff everybody has to say about what should be happening in Indigenous communities, most of them would be disgusted, because they do not like other people speaking up for what they do not believe in. Speak in the middle if you want to speak for Indigenous people.
We need to move them up on the same level, and we have not been doing that. All we have been worried about is building everything else around them and they are still stuck down the bottom. We need to move them together. Education is the poorest thing in the remote communities; it has failed dramatically. There are only a few Indigenous people who live in town who are good at administration. How are they going to run the farm out in the bush? They still need support in the administration, so education still comes under that. We still have to get them trained up in that matter.
It is true what the member for Nelson just said. Has anybody really considered that? You go into the communities, not everybody can speak English well. English was not my first language. Was it yours, member for Arafura? Was it yours, member for Namatjira? Exactly. We learnt at school; we were not born and raised with English. That is your language, we have our own ...
Ms Fyles: Do not cut the teachers.
Ms LEE: Oh, yes, here we go, back to the teachers again, as the member for Nightcliff says. She is so negative about this water allocation and everything else. I meet with the same people you meet, so I get two sides of the information, not only the briefing from the minister, but the briefing from outside this building.
This will promote sustainable water resource management in the Territory. Indigenous Territorians need this assurance in order to play a central role in economic development in the Northern Territory.
In conclusion, this will form a key plank for the development of the regions of the Northern Territory and will give real meaning to our government policy of Framing the Future.
I go back to the cap the member for Barkly was going off about. I took note of what the minister, the member for Katherine, said. The people advised the committee the cap be taken off. What more can you ask for? Are you telling these people they cannot take the cap off because scientifically and environmentally it is not right?
In one part you were talking about the rights of Indigenous people, and the next minute you were saying, ‘No, the advice you have given to the minister is wrong’. Where are you coming from? I cannot understand. You are always saying two things at once. It is confusing this House, and it is mainly confusing me. Eventually, you will be confusing the people outside this House if they have to listen to this for the rest of their lives.
Speak on what you know best; do not try to deliberate on Aboriginal people you do not know. You went to school with the mob here in Darwin. They are not the same as the mob out bush. The mob in town is not the same as the mob out in whoop-whoop; we are all different. Everyone has a judgment on Indigenous affairs, especially in this House. The biggest argument comes from the opposition ...
Mr Westra van Holthe: Most of them would not have a clue.
Ms LEE: Most of them do not have a clue. They are talking about the springs and everything else. Well, guess what? In the community I grew up in, we have our own spring which fills up our own water tank, and we have lived like that since I was born, nearly 30 years. They are not complaining about the Tindall aquifer.
I go back to what the Opposition Leader said the other day, ‘Have you discussed it with the traditional owners? I have been talking to the traditional owners.’ What traditional owners has she been talking to around Katherine? I have not seen her around Katherine. What traditional owners? Seriously! I am one of them. I go back all the way to East Arnhem Land, that is my traditional country, and back up north to my mother’s side. I would like to know who. Everything you say out there in the bush comes back directly to me. Do you people realise that? I am not holding that against you. By all means do it, because you are just killing yourselves.
It is not hurting me, because they know me. They have known me since the minute I was born. If they did not know me they would not have voted for me. I broke the ice on this one. I cut the little red ribbon they had in Arnhem Land, the first Liberal to win that seat. All of you hate me, I can see it in your eyes. Isn’t it lovely?
Mr Deputy Speaker, that is my little contribution to the House.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Land Resource Management): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will now close this debate on the water statement.
First, I counted the contributions from each side of the House. It is disappointing – correct me if I am wrong – but there was only one member of the opposition who stood to speak on this statement ...
Ms Anderson: Shame!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Shame! It is absolutely shameful to have only one member of the opposition speak on this very important topic.
There is no doubt, which was acknowledged by the member for Nightcliff, that water is the most precious resource we have in the Northern Territory. Yet, the lack of interest shown by the opposition in this statement and what the member for Nightcliff described as the most precious resource of the Northern Territory, is beyond belief. I am disappointed only one member …
Mr Vowles interjecting.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: What was that? You want to take me outside, member for Johnston? Did you say that again? I want to check.
Mr Vowles interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A bit of order!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Just checking ...
Mr Giles: He cannot debate …
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: No, so he has to take you outside.
It was disappointing there was only one contribution from the other side. We had four members from this side contribute to the debate besides me, with a very well-thought through and reasoned contribution by the member for Nelson. I appreciate his comments.
Let me touch on a few of the things that were raised. I will deal with the member for Nelson’s issues raised during his contribution because they deserve to be answered. I will do my best to deal with those now. Not necessarily in this order, he mentioned the review of the Water Act and water planning as a whole across the Northern Territory.
The review is happening now and is in its early stages. The construction of a water policy, which is something new for the Northern Territory, will commence once we have a water directorate. The water directorate will sit within the Department of Land Resource Management and high-level officers will be working on high-level strategic and policy advice to the minister. That is coming. I can assure you the community will be well and truly brought along in that process.
I paraphrase what the member for Nelson mentioned, that water should be allocated according to what is needed, not necessarily what is wanted. Let me respond by saying there is an apparent misunderstanding, or a lack of understanding, of the commercialisation of agriculture and water by the opposition and, from the member for Nelson’s statement, apparently him also. First, we have, in the new regime of water licensing, a use it or lose it type policy whereby water will be allocated, but if it is not used in adherence with the development plan submitted with the water licence application, that water may well be pared back and taken off a licensee.
However, I point out to members in this House that the commercialisation of agriculture in the Northern Territory requires a number of things. One of those things is land. The second thing is a capacity of the landowner to do the job, so some expertise, experience and knowledge. Water is the other thing.
It is not sufficient to say you have a certain amount of water; you need to commercialise that with lending institutions to develop your property in the way you intend to. In most cases it requires a landowner to go to a financial institution and borrow money. You cannot borrow money for a project unless you have all the requisite parts of an agricultural development, including water. You cannot put X amount of gigalitres on a block of land and say, ‘Show the bank, there it is’. You must show them a licence to extract it. It is necessary to issue water licences that may be beyond what is needed, as the member for Nelson said, to obtain the requisite finance to be able to proceed with economic development in the agricultural sector.
The member for Nelson also talked about water in relation to towns and cities and the domestic supply. He mentioned the Warrai dam, the Darwin River Dam, which can still be further augmented, and the Manton Dam, which is a possibility if the Darwin water supply demands it. There is also a further site: the Adelaide River off-stream storage site, which is separate to the Warrai dam. Power and Water and the Department of Land Resource Management are taking a very long-term and strategic approach to dealing with issues around the future of Darwin’s water supply.
Of course, Katherine sits in an area that is covered by the allocation plan, so we are minding our ‘p’s and ‘q’s there. I have talked about Alice Springs. The reason we were able to lift the cap in relation to the Roe Creek bore field there was because of the Water Smart initiative that has been undertaken over a number of years and the drop in water usage by Alice Springs residents, which means their supplies are more sustainable than they were.
Fracking was also raised by the member for Nelson. I do not want to go too much into fracking because that is a whole other discussion. However, he said we should not ignore the greenies. I agree that we should not ignore them. He also said, as a government, we have a responsibility to regulate properly around this issue and ensure we take water into consideration. I agree with that also. I point out that sitting alongside the responsibilities government has, the greenies, as we call them, the Environment Centre of the Northern Territory, also has a responsibility, which is not to perpetuate mistruths and lies about the practice of fracking, or horizontal stimulation as it is called in the industry ...
Mr Giles: Horizontal stimulation?
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: That is what they call it, Chief Minister, horizontal stimulation.
Mr Giles: I think you made the member for Nhulunbuy blush.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Goodness me!
Ms Walker: It does not take much to make me blush, shrinking violet that I am!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: It is hard to ignore that. I will ignore the raised eyebrows from the member for Nhulunbuy; that was a bit disconcerting, you are a married woman.
Anyway, the Environment Centre of the NT also has a responsibility to tell the truth. They are stirring up a great deal of trouble misrepresenting the practices around unconventional gas in the Northern Territory to suit their own purposes. They, indeed, also have some responsibilities.
The member for Nelson also pointed out that the member for Daly had shown some support for the strategic Indigenous reserve. Also, from what the member for Arnhem said, there is some support from her quarter as well. I guess that is the beauty of being in conservative politics; you are entitled to have your own view. If you were in the Labor Party and you tried to espouse a view that was different from the party line, you would be hung, drawn, and quartered, as we have seen before in the Northern Territory Labor Party. We encourage independent thought on this side of the House; that is what sparks good debate.
I will point out, even though I pointed it out in the statement, that the members for Arnhem, Daly, Stuart and Arafura were very strident in their views in relation to the review of the strategic Indigenous reserve. It is the work they did representing their constituents that brought about my and government’s position on a review of strategic Indigenous reserves over the next few years. I am going to talk about SIR later. Hopefully, I will have a few more minutes.
I thank the other members from this side of the House who spoke. The Chief Minister gave a great deal of support to this statement, and for that I say thank you. Of course, the members for Namatjira and Arnhem also supported this statement. I also thank the member for Daly who was impassioned and probably a little angry in his response, given the ill-informed and ignorant contribution by the member for Nightcliff. He is entitled to have those views, given his experience with water planning through the Daly River Management Advisory Committee.
I will pause for a moment, as I thought I could hear a dog whistle. That is what is coming from the opposition. It is a dog whistle to the Aboriginal people, showing some sort of famed support for this position around strategic Indigenous reserves and is really quite shallow and disgraceful conduct from the opposition. It certainly does not (a) go towards a good debate, or (b) focus on the issues facing Indigenous people right now.
The member for Nightcliff talked about a number of things. It is very interesting to note that not once – and the member for Nightcliff has been a member of parliament for a bit over a year now – has she sought a briefing from my office or the department on anything to do with water resources.
I have an advantage being the minister, in that I have a department to support me and provide me with information. However, the opposition members also have an opportunity to inform themselves. Let me tell you, members of the opposition, you have a responsibility to yourselves and to your constituents to ensure you are fully informed, so when you come into this House you can contribute in a debate in a way that is sensible, intelligent, and meaningful.
Member for Nightcliff, your contribution was none of those things, and I am extremely disappointed, once again, that you have chosen to go down this path. Your contribution today was all hearsay and innuendo, based on adopting third-party comment when it was convenient for you to do so. You obviously did not read the whole statement, and I will come to that in a moment. Your debate was based entirely on emotion and trying to pull on the emotive heart strings of Indigenous people around the Territory. I can tell you that by doing that you are doing them a great disservice.
You obviously do not understand agriculture and the commercialisation of agriculture in the Northern Territory, nor do you understand the environment. You certainly do not understand water planning in the context of the Northern Territory ...
Ms Walker: But she knows a rort when she sees one.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I will pick up on the interjection by the member for Nhulunbuy ...
Ms Walker: Nhulunbuy, a hard vowel sound.
Mr Giles: Null and void, not on board.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Null and void, not on board, all of those.
We have done this up hill and down dale, and the suggestion that there has been any sort of rort or ministerial influence from me – I know she is referring to the Mataranka water licence – is absolutely absurd. You can take that to the bank with you, members for Nhulunbuy and Nightcliff, because it is just not true. Anyway, I digress a little.
It became quite evident that you had not read the statement when you started talking about your lack of understanding of off-stream storage. Off-stream storage is fairly well described in the statement. I do not quite get why you could not understand what is simple and clear in the statement. You clearly did not read it properly.
You said a new water body was announced today, the Northern Territory Catchments Advisory Committee. That was announced by me before. Clearly you have not been listening. I have the terms of reference now, which I am starting to go through, and we are working through that process. It would pay you, member for Nightcliff, to be a little more switched on to what is happening in your shadow portfolio area.
You referred to Alice Springs and the Roe Creek bore field, the lifting of the cap, and you made some comments like, ‘What if there are changes to climate or rainfall?’ Again, it clearly shows you have not read the statement because in that statement, which I wrote, and when I read it, I read it verbatim, I mentioned section 34 of the Water Act, which deals with all of those things.
What I picked up today from the opposition is something I guess I already knew but it is another manifestation of it: that the reason the Northern Territory is in this position now is because for the last 11 years, from 2001 to 2012, this wonderful jurisdiction, this beautiful place to live, had a constipated government. You were so held to ransom by minority groups that you did not have the political courage or will to make any hard decisions about anything.
Let us face it, 75 water licences were not dealt with under your government. The member for Daly talked about other things that your government had not done. I have no need to repeat those things, but that is the type of government the Northern Territory had from 2001 to 2012.
I can assure the people of the Northern Territory listening to this broadcast that if you should ever go back to considering a Labor government in the Northern Territory again, that is what you will get: another constipated government that has no courage. Not only that, you will get a government that supports a lifelong miserable existence for Aboriginal people.
On 25 August last year, you lot were tossed out because Aboriginal people realised that under Labor policies and government they were getting nowhere. They were still where they were 11 or 12 years ago. I will even say they are worse off now than they were 40 years ago when welfare came in as it is currently. That is probably one of the biggest reasons we have not seen substantial amounts of Indigenous development ...
Mrs LAMBLEY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I know we have talked about it here before and I am going to say it again, welfare has held Aboriginal people back. It has created a malaise. It has created a false sense of security that those people can sit around and do nothing and the government will pick up the bill. It has prevented them from attaining and seeking any impetus to develop economically.
You claim that somehow a strategic Indigenous reserve will solve those problems. It will not because if you warehouse water for the next five, 10, 20, 40 years, if you put aside a strategic Indigenous reserve for Lord knows how long – I would love to hear from the opposition their plans around a strategic Indigenous reserve and how long they think water should stay unallocated so, maybe one day, Indigenous people can grab hold of some of that water and do some development.
What I am doing by removing the strategic Indigenous reserve, notwithstanding the review of the policy, is providing an incentive and some impetus for Indigenous people who might become farmers to be engaged with the process. That is all we are trying to do. We are encouraging people to get off welfare and find alternatives. Under Labor’s policy you would find warehousing of water with no impetus provided for Aboriginal people to develop economically. Think about that. Do we want to provide an environment where people can sit down and be paid by the government, or one where people want jobs, economic development for themselves, our children, their children, and their grandchildren?
I had the pleasure yesterday of going to the port to celebrate the first shipment of Sherwin Iron’s iron ore to China. It was heartening to see a number of Indigenous people from Ngukurr and the Roper River region there. I made the observation that we were on Larrakia land, but I also made the observation that some land that belonged to the Roper River Indigenous people was on that boat, and that was symbolic of the capacity of that land to develop an economy and make money. Who would not want that for their people? How many times have you heard senior Indigenous people say, ‘We are land rich but dirt poor’? How many times? I have heard it tons of times. Do you know why? Because there is no economic development on that land, or very little. That is why those senior Indigenous people will say that, because they want to see an economy grow.
In the case of mining, some iron ore leaving traditional lands of the Roper people will go to China making them money, turning that land into something that provides economic viability. Likewise, agriculture development can do the same thing. It was great to hear the member for Arnhem talk about the people of Ngukurr who want to get agricultural developments up and running. That is fantastic. However, when will they is the question in my mind. Under this government’s policy, we will encourage them and provide some impetus for them to start that process now because we want them to get up. We do not want them to sit down anymore, we want them to get up. The Labor Party policy would much rather see them sitting down for the next 30 or 40 years waiting for something to happen. Think about that.
That is the context in which an SIR, in my view, is bad policy. I do not know if Indigenous organisations like NAILSMA are doing their people any favours by saying, ‘It is okay to sit around for the next 10, 20, 30, 40 years, the water will be there for you whenever you feel like developing some economy around it’. They are doing their people an enormous disservice. I am not picking on NAILSMA, but NAILSMA is one Indigenous organisation – there would be others – which should be doing everything it its power to get its people up.
This government is about creating economic development on that basis. I told the National Water Commission that several months ago when I met with them for dinner. I said the current policies, welfare and those types of things have created a malaise for Indigenous people. There is no sense of urgency and no sense of ‘let us get on and get this done’. The current sense is, ‘We can just sit around and wait until the cows come home, the government will pick up the tab and pay us welfare until that time’. What is wrong with getting this economy for Aboriginal people developed now?
It disappoints me to hear so much consternation around the strategic Indigenous reserve. Have a think about it from that perspective. Why would we not be encouraging people to get up now? The policy of SIR does not do that. This is what I explained to my backbench colleagues when we had this discussion about SIR before. They said they want to review the policy. I said that was fine, but at the same time I espoused my views on why we should not have an SIR. That was largely the reason I gave: we want to encourage people. That is what government should be doing, not putting policy in place and having a policy platform that says it is okay to sit down. It is not good enough.
Aboriginal people deserve better than that; they are a proud race. I know some of those old fellows and old ladies. I have been around for a while in the Territory, about 30 years. I know many of those old people; they are proud people. Or they were proud when they had jobs, when they were looking after their houses, when their kids were going to school. However, much of that pride has gone because of that creeping malaise that has come over Aboriginal Australia. That is not to say that all Aboriginal people are caught up in the malaise, because there are some very high-profile people – indeed, we have members of parliament who are Indigenous – who are very well-educated people with good jobs. However, when you look across the Northern Territory and go to communities like Wadeye, Lajamanu, Yuendumu, Papunya, Santa Teresa, and Alpurrurulam, there are many people who are looking for opportunity. They want to be proud once again.
Unfortunately, the policy settings of governments, or would-be governments like the Labor Party, would prefer to keep them down. I said that to the Prime Minister a number of years ago in the context of some things Warren Snowdon said. As far as the Labor Party is concerned, it is far better to keep the Aboriginal people down than to pretend to champion their cause to garner votes ...
Mr Giles: Who said that?
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I said that to the Prime Minister, but it was in the context of some things Warren Snowdon said at the 20th anniversary of the hand back of Nitmiluk Gorge to the local Jawoyn people.
I guess that is why there was a revolt by Aboriginal people on 25 August 2012. The Labor Party was unceremoniously swept from power because you have done nothing for Aboriginal people. When I hear your views on the strategic Indigenous reserve – that is why, because the blackfellas are awake to you. They know, they understand ...
Ms Walker: Blackfellas, that is a bit offensive.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I am entitled to call them that. I have been around the Territory for 30 years and many of them are my friends, Lynne.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I might leave it there. I am going to run out of time for the second time. Thank you to those who contributed to the debate, particularly on this side of the House, and also the member for Nelson. I am sure water will be a topic of much discussion for years to come.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, I table the Remuneration Tribunal Report on the Entitlements of Assembly Members and Determination No 1 of 2013.
The Remuneration Tribunal has recently undertaken its annual review of entitlements of members of the Assembly, and I am pleased to table in the House the tribunal’s 2013 report and determination.
The determination is scheduled to take effect from 1 January 2014, subject to any disallowance motion from this House. Key features of the 2013 Remuneration Tribunal Determination are as follows.
Definitions: the definition of office holder has been amended to accord with the definition of the term of this act. This extends the application of determining the RTD beyond the Speaker, ministers, Leader of the Opposition and Deputy Leader of the Opposition to include the holder of any other office in the Assembly.
Electorate allowances: electorate allowances have been increased by 2.4%, being the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for the 12 months ending June 2013. All other allowances have been similarly increased where appropriate.
Additional assistance, electorate staffing: the provision for part-time assistance in electorate offices has been extended from six to eight hours per week.
An allowance in lieu of vehicle: for those members who have opted to take an annual allowance in lieu of a government-provided motor vehicle, the determination has increased this allowance to $24 504 per annum. The extra allowance takes into account usage for Assembly purposes in addition to electorate purposes, and will avoid the need for the administrative work associated with mileage claims.
Travelling allowances: rates of travelling allowance have been adjusted based on the amounts published by the Australian Taxation Office. The Darwin rate for other than commercial accommodation has been set at $350 per day which recognises the higher Darwin rental market, and that the amount for meals and incidentals has not been adjusted for a number of years.
Travel for spouses and nominees: the travel entitlement for spouses or nominees under clause 3.13, Travel to and from official government assembly or vice regal functions under certain conditions, had been inadvertently omitted from the 2012 determination and has now been reinstated.
Travel for ministers and the Leader of the Opposition: acknowledgement of the general travel entitlement for ministers and the Leader of the Opposition has also been omitted from the 2012 determination. This has been reversed in a new clause 3.2 by way of a statement that travel by these office holders and their spouses, nominees or children, in addition to the travel entitlements contained in the determination, is a matter for the government.
Communications: a Smart phone or iPhone has been provided for electorate officers to enable better communication between the member and his or her electorate officer.
In addition to the changes in the determination, the tribunal in its report commented there had been an intention to review the provision of four-wheel-drive vehicles for the members for Katherine and Nelson as part of the 2013 inquiry. However, the tribunal decided not to undertake this review as it will conduct a wider review on the provisions or otherwise of motor vehicles at its next inquiry. The review will investigate the types of vehicles required for urban, semi-rural and rural electorates, and the rates of allowances for those opting for an allowance in lieu of a vehicle.
The tribunal again this year reiterated its view that the legislation should be amended to remove the linkage between increases in NT Public Service wages and increases to Assembly member wages, and that the tribunal be provided with the power to set basic salary and additional salary of office. The government has made no decision about this recommendation of the tribunal, however, will give the proposal due consideration.
REORDER OF ROUTINE OF BUSINESS
Mrs LAMBLEY (Acting Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 89, I move that Government Business Order of the Day No 18 be called on now, and Government Business Order of the Day No 14 be subsequently considered.
Motion agreed to.
Continued from 8 October 2013.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for Mines and Energy for his statement. Mining has been a key priority for this government.
The first Australia China Minerals Investment Summit was held here in May of this year, followed by the Katherine Regional Mining and Exploration Forum held in June. The past month has seen intense activity as The Mining Territory Conference 2013 and the South East Asia Australia Offshore Conference, SEAAOC, attracted record exhibitor numbers and attendance. The minister and I attended the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association Onshore Gas Conference in Adelaide just last week.
A great deal of work has been done since the County Liberal government came to office. We came to office to provide a topical overview of the Territory for investors to outline the exploration prospects, to present mineral potential opportunities, to discuss strategies for production and export, and advise about the specific requirements and responsibilities of the Northern Territory’s resource industry.
The fact is the Northern Territory is highly prospective. We are open for business and we encourage and support investment. Our blueprint, entitled Framing the Future, matches a vision of an economy built on exports and the needs of our trading partners, with the objective of an economy that unlocks the potential and builds our regions. This is a consistent message and is in step with the federal Coalition’s message out of Canberra with its emphasis on infrastructure and the focus on developing northern Australia.
The Territory’s building blocks include engagement in partnership with Indigenous landowners, infrastructure investment, initiatives such as Creating Opportunities Resource Exploration, or CORE, with our goal to translate exploration potential into real product for export.
Business at the Port of Darwin is increasing as new mining projects come online, thanks to the Country Liberals government. In the year to June 2013, nearly 4.3 million tonnes was transhipped at East Arm Wharf, up more than 800 000 tonnes on the previous year. This was mainly due to dry bulk exports, especially iron ore which increased by 570 000 tonnes.
The Minister for Mines and Energy mentioned the Roper region during his statement. The region is currently experiencing an unprecedented level of economic activity that would never have been possible under a poor-performing, debt-ridden Labor government. It included, this week, the first shipment of iron ore from Sherwin Iron for export to China, something I know the minister was extremely proud of. The Roper River mine is scheduled to move into full production next year with up to 300 employed when fully operational.
I will talk again about Western Desert resources, the flagship $200m project, 60 km south of Ngukurr and 50 km from Bing Bong Port on the Gulf of Carpentaria. This Roper Bar project involves the construction of an open pit operation with 1.5 million tonnes of capacity in the initial stages, which will increase to three million tonnes a year by the third year of operation.
These demonstrate that the Northern Territory has large-scale mineral resources and we will continue to fight to get them out of the ground. We support economic development and business creation and jobs. Resources in that zone of mineral resources also include zinc, bauxite, phosphate, manganese and gold.
Arafura Resources has executed a memorandum of understanding with Chinese rare earths provider Shenghe Resources Holding Company to jointly develop the Nolans rare earth project, an exciting project about 130 km north of Alice Springs. Mithril Resources is focused on copper exploration. TNG, as I mentioned earlier today, is moving ahead with its plans for its Mount Peake strategic metals project 235 km northwest of Alice Springs. I awarded that major project status on 25 September 2013. At the time, TNG’s managing director, Paul Burton, summed up the significance of this announcement when he said in his media release:
A history of long-term projects in the Territory has proved our commitment is not just a hollow promise. For example, on 19 September 2013 I officially opened the $220m brine concentrator at Energy Resources of Australia’s Ranger Mine. ERA’s history, in step with the Mirrar traditional owners, and continued investment is the economic driver for the Jabiru township and region, bringing jobs and skills. It has made possible joint initiatives between ERA and the Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation, including the new residential college.
We know how critical a mining operation is to an adjoining community. That is why such strenuous efforts have been put into the gas to Gove project. The Northern Territory government has put forward a proposal for the provision of up to 175 PJ of our own gas. As part of that support, we will work with Rio Tinto to encourage and facilitate new gas sources being brought into production as soon as possible to provide the long-term energy security the refinery needs.
The federal government has again confirmed its support for financing and construction of the gas pipeline from Katherine to Gove. They have also announced, through minister Ian Macfarlane, he believes they have found the required gas to completely fulfil Rio Tinto’s requirements.
Rio Tinto’s future about its Gove operations is a commitment that remains outstanding: the commitment all the community needs to hear. We have been working diligently on securing the long-term future of the East Arnhem region. It is a pity the member for Nhulunbuy does not support these claims and only antagonises the situation, leaves the community ill-informed and seeks to drive Rio Tinto out of town.
Earlier this year, we heard claims that Australia’s resources boom was over, that China’s slowdown was curbing demand and that the unprecedented prices would come down. The reality is the huge numbers of people in the nation to the north of us are beginning to demand more necessities such as minerals, energy and food, and, in particular, commodities such as iron ore, copper, coal, aluminium, gas, grain and protein. The Northern Territory and northern Australia is in an enormously strong position, much to Labor’s discredit, to respond as Australia’s economy demonstrates increased demand and our production ramps up to service export markets.
The Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics, BREE, noted in the September 2013 Resources Energy Quarterly that the outlook for Australia’s mineral and energy exports remains positive. China’s GDP growth is assumed to recover slightly to 7.6% in 2014, again supported primarily by capital expenditure, and, to 2018, China’s imports are projected to grow at an average rate of around 5% per year. I note China simply as one example.
During September’s NT Resources Week we promoted investment opportunities to key players from China to Indonesia. Also in September we saw interest in the Territory’s iron ore project from visiting Vietnamese investors, and a number of rare earth minerals projects were promoted to Taiwanese officials.
Later this month I will lead a trade delegation investment mission to Japan, China and Vietnam. While my trip will promote the full range of investment and trade opportunities across the Northern Territory’s multilevel economy, one of the highlights of this mission will be to open a minerals and energy investment seminar in Tokyo where Territory projects will be showcased to Japanese investors. My trip to Japan, China and Vietnam will open doors and pave the way for the targeted investment meetings that will take place in late October and early November.
At that time, the Minister for Mines and Energy will lead a follow-up investment delegation comprising Territory exploration companies seeking investors for their projects. That follow-up delegation will participate in a number of promotional seminars, as well as prearranged meetings with potential investors such as the major Japanese trading houses and Chinese companies with a need for the minerals the Territory has in abundance. I note the minister will hold a number of high-level meetings with government officials in China, designed to open up new opportunities for agricultural trade and investment between China and the Northern Territory, in his role as the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries as well.
My primary objective is to lead a government that develops: a multilevel economy that leverages new investment, including opportunities for all the people in our regions; a proven record in the Northern Territory for reliability, efficiency and responsiveness; and an economy strengthened by new projects and built on strong local businesses. With this government’s commitment to foster a prosperous economy comes a need to actively attract foreign investment into key sectors of the economy such as mining and energy. Foreign investment into the Northern Territory’s mineral and energy exploration projects is crucial for advancing our economy, for creating jobs and for regional development, something Labor simply does not support or promote.
Our task is ongoing and our commitment to lift the profile of the Northern Territory internationally is resolute. This is something that Labor failed over eleven-and-a-half years; they were too scared to get on the plane to promote the Territory and seek the financial investment to grow northern Australia for the long-term benefit of all Territorians.
Madam Speaker, I commend this statement to the House and look forward to working with the Minister for Mines and Energy to ensure we have a long-lasting future in the Northern Territory.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I will now wrap up this debate. First of all, I thank members for their comments in response to this ministerial statement on mining.
As some would be aware, I could not be in the House for some of those remarks yesterday, as I was on East Arm Wharf alongside Sherwin Iron executives and proud traditional owners to witness the very first shipment of iron ore from Sherwin Iron’s Roper mine site which was being loaded for export to China. It was a momentous occasion to be there to see this iron ore being loaded, and a proud day for Sherwin as well as the traditional owners and the Territory.
As I mentioned a short time ago, it was wonderful to see the traditional owners there in support of using their land to create wealth. I was delighted to hear some of them speak yesterday afternoon. They were talking about better education and more job opportunities for their children and grandchildren. That is the sort of thing the Country Liberals government likes to hear.
Talking about that Roper mine, 200 million tonnes of ore from the Roper River mine is expected to pass through East Arm over that project’s 20 year-plus lifespan, hopefully destined for the steel mills of China.
While it was unfortunate I could not be here to hear some of the comments made in response to this mining statement, I have taken the time to read all the remarks in Hansard. For the most part I was disappointed in the standard of comments and the pithy remarks made by those opposite. If I could sum it up in a few words, it was sour grapes from those opposite who are still coming to terms with being in opposition. Tough place to sit, isn’t it? Hopefully, you will be there for a very long time. You were, obviously, trying to rewrite history and view things through rose-coloured glasses.
It has been said in this House before – I might even attribute it to the member for Port Darwin when he said the Labor Party, when they come in this place sometimes, would have you think that prior to 2001 the Northern Territory was a desert – barren wasteland. Then, on the seventh day, the Labor Party was elected and everything was just fine. I tell you, hearing the contributions yesterday you could be forgiven for thinking that is exactly how the Labor Party thinks and what they would like to rewrite history to reflect.
It was very disappointing to hear that. I have always stood in this House and given credit where credit is due, but clearly that benefit was not reciprocated by the opposition.
It is a fact that since coming to government the Country Liberals have made huge progress in cutting red tape and increasing the amount of support offered to the resource and exploration industry, in changing mining regulations to enable the industry to get on and do the job, and by investing and implementing proposals such as the priority zone system. I notice the member for Casuarina made some comments about that yesterday, saying there is no detail. There is no detail because it is still being worked on. I am sure if you take a briefing at the appropriate time you will have all the details filled in, member for Casuarina.
We will put money on the table in supporting development of infrastructure and to improve and speed up approvals for land access and provide whole-of-government assistance for qualifying in order to accelerate exploration activity within those priority zones. That is a sneak peek.
For the member for Casuarina to assert in respect of my quote which was:
From Hansard, I quote the member for Casuarina who said:
Not true.
The priority zone approach will be a case management type approach which the former Labor government never considered. This is something quite new, and something you did not do before.
The whole mining industry in the Northern Territory, I can tell you, breathed a collective sigh of relief on 25 August last year when you were voted from power, because you were seen to be a government which was obstructive, difficult to work with, and you engendered a culture in the public service which meant that government approvals became constipated, where everything slowed down and nothing happened in good time.
It has taken me a year-and-a-bit, so far, to work through some of those issues. We are getting there. Testament to that is something you never did before: introduce four-year mine management plans to free up resources and ease the burden on not only the mining companies, but also the very hard-working and dedicated public servants who work in the Department of Mines and Energy, allowing them more time to get into the field and do the things they should be doing in developing relationships with the mining operators, as well as conducting very important site inspections.
I pick up on something else the member for Casuarina mentioned yesterday around CORE, the Creating Opportunity for Research Exploration initiative. When comparing the Country Liberals government’s CORE to the opposition’s Bringing Forward Discovery, the member for Casuarina forgot a key difference between the two programs. While I concede they both encourage declaration and investment in the mining industry in the Northern Territory, the key difference is the Country Liberals’ CORE initiative is fully funded, Kon. It contains a raft of new programs which will provide cutting-edge data to assist exploration ...
Mr Vatskalis: We have already done that.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: You have to remember, because I remember this very well, When we first got into power and I started getting ministerial briefs across my desk, one of those ministerial briefs contained a bunch of unfunded liabilities. Do you know where Bringing Forward Discovery was? It was right in the middle of the pack of unfunded legacy items from the former government. What they had done was fund Bringing Forward Discovery and started the process. Then, guess what? They cut the funding so the program could only continue using the resources of the total Department of Mines and Energy. Not that they increased the budget of Mines and Energy, in fact, quite the opposite was true. That is further borne out when you look at staffing numbers.
During the period – from memory it was 2004 until 2012 – Northern Territory public service numbers rose by 18%. However, during that same period of time, the staffing of what was then the department of Resources, which included Primary Industry and Fisheries, and Mines and Energy, fell by 14%. The former Labor government not only stopped funding very important initiatives within the department, they slashed and burned …
Mr Vatskalis: Rubbish, absolute rubbish!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I pick up that the member for Casuarina said ‘rubbish'. I have the statistics. I did not bring the graph with me, but I have seen the graph because I have presented it in this House before. The public sector went up 18%, the department of Resources went down by 14%. The former government raped and pillaged the department of Resources so they could push it into social programs.
We know that is what the Labor government was all about. They are not interested in economic development, as I said in my previous debate. All they are interested in is letting people on welfare sit down. They are interested in supporting the social service industry. They are not interested in economic development. They would not know it if it jumped up and bit them on the backside. However, I digress.
I also respond to the member for Casuarina’s remarks about the Fraser Institute’s annual survey of mining companies. The Fraser Institute, a Canadian-based research organisation, received responses from over 740 companies on the exploration attractiveness of 96 jurisdictions worldwide. In the 2012-13 survey, the Northern Territory was ranked amongst the world’s leading jurisdictions for our regulatory environment and attractiveness for exploration investment.
In the current mineral potential index, which is a combined measure of industries’ perceptions as to whether a jurisdiction’s mineral potential and its current policy environment encourages or discourages exploration, the NT came 10th in the world. Not only that, it came second in Australia just behind Western Australia. Of course, the member for Casuarina, who is not interested in giving credit where credit is due, did not talk about that part of the statistics. The Northern Territory came first in all the Australian jurisdictions for all criteria relating to the certainty of regulation and a lack of regulatory duplication. The Northern Territory came ninth globally and first in Australia for the level of certainty concerning the administration, interpretation and enforcement of existing regulation.
To reiterate, the Northern Territory was ninth globally and first in Australia for having a lack of regulatory duplication inconsistency, and those results were gleaned post-August 2012 after the former government was gone, gone, gone. This indicates the industry’s perceptions of the certainty and lack of duplication of the mining regulatory environment in the Northern Territory as positive compared to other Australian and global jurisdictions.
The Northern Territory ranked 12th in the world, but fifth in Australia for the quality and accessibility of its geological database. The survey suggests that the mining and exploration industry’s perceptions of the Northern Territory’s attractiveness as an exploration investment destination remain high, both in a global context and relative to the other Australian jurisdictions.
The member for Casuarina was wrong, or he cherry picked just one statistic from the Frazer Institute report that suited his agenda yesterday. He is not into giving credit where credit is due, he would just rather have a crack and try to rewrite history and move on. In puff pastry statements, member for Casuarina, perhaps you should just stick to baking. Go and bake your own puff pastry and do not try to rewrite history.
While I thank all the members for their responses to this statement on mining, on the whole it was disappointing to hear the general negativity coming from the members opposite. However, I have to agree with the member for Barkly, who claimed that the Barkly region is the bread basket of the Northern Territory when it comes to potential for minerals. I agree, and I hope for the sake of Tennant Creek and surrounds that the Barkly region or Tennant Creek mining goes back to the dizzying heights it was many years ago, because that will be good for not only the Northern Territory as a whole, but for Tennant Creek.
As the member of Port Darwin pointed out, Territorians are looking for rational debate. I thank the member for Port Darwin who jumped to his feet yesterday to contribute to this statement. He pointed out that Territorians are looking for rational debate from members of parliament, not the glossing over or rewriting of history and certainly not sour grapes.
I thank the members for Namatjira and Arnhem for their comments. I thank the Chief Minister for his comments this afternoon regarding mining. It is great to have a group of people in government who are all on the same page. When we talk about mining, agriculture, or economic development we are all on the same page, which was not true of the former Labor government. They had many arguments and many diverging views around where their resources should go and how they should support the growth of the Territory.
We know, for example, the former member for Arnhem, Malarndirri McCarthy, was more than happy for money to come out of tourism and go into social programs. She said that during estimates. We know the current Leader of the Opposition, the member for Karama, does not now, and did not then, support development of the Ord. On this side of the House, we support these big major projects that will bring prosperity to the Northern Territory.
Once again, I thank members for their contribution. There is so much happening in the mining sector in the Northern Territory; I carry some regret I cannot talk for too long about the mining activity happening here. If we had the time, the opportunity, and the resources within the department to help with some facts, I could probably deliver a statement in this House that went for two or three hours, because there is so much happening in the mining sector since we came to government. There is a new sense of vibrancy to the Northern Territory; people are interested in coming here.
The Northern Territory, like never before, is on the lips of the world; they are talking about us. They are interested in what we are doing and in our gas developments. They see the Northern Territory as prospective. They see, finally, that the Northern Territory is growing up. It is taking its place as a powerhouse within this wonderful brown land of Australia. They are starting to see us for the potential we have. We are not doing what Labor did, not talking the Territory down, we are talking the Territory up. We are thinking outside the box ...
Mr Chandler: Open for business.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: We are open for business. It is a great little saying, isn’t it, Madam Speaker? I love that – it is open for business. There are many things going on here.
Let us take one example: Arafura Resources. I know Arafura Resources is seriously considering processing their rare earth in the Northern Territory. They had an arrangement to move to Whyalla. One could only guess why they would have even considered Whyalla instead of processing in the Northern Territory. I am going to hazard a guess and say it was the fact that the former government did not provide an environment that gave them certainty and suggested the Northern Territory was open for business. It was probably because the processing of rare earth in the Northern Territory or anywhere else necessarily involves a bit of radioactive material as well. I believe that frightened the former government. They were scared. It goes back to some comments I made earlier about the lack of political courage and will, which was the hallmark of the former Labor government.
However, that is not the case for this government. We are committed to developing the Northern Territory, and we are willing to take the hard decisions to do it. I could have had a much easier path if I had not had to be involved with or supported some tough decisions this government has made. It would be easy, would it not? ‘Let us just sit around and let things bubble along, not make any hard decisions, not worry about things too much. No one will criticise us, but nothing will happen either.’
We are not like that. We are prepared to confront these issues. I have said before that as a government we are keen to see development in the Northern Territory, and there will be more of it. There will be more opportunities for the Labor Party, the greenies, and for all the naysayers to attack us because we will be out there doing things. We will be giving away more water and having more mining development across the Northern Territory, because that is the future of the Northern Territory. If it ruffles a few feathers, I guess we will just have to get past that. We are prepared to make those tough decisions.
Once again, Madam Speaker, I thank everybody for their contributions. We will continue to keep the real history of the Northern Territory alive and respond as I have this afternoon to the mistruths and the rewriting of history the opposition tries to peddle. I look forward very much to reporting on future and further mining developments across the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory has a very bright future.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Continued from 21 August 2013.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I am not sure, but I think I have 10 minutes left. Is that correct?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, it is.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, in this job you have an assortment of issues to cover in one day, especially when you are not expecting it. I am the fill-in man for General Business Day, although I am sure the Minister for Health will make plenty of comments.
I quickly read through my statements on this issue. I reiterate that I do not oppose the idea of mandatory alcohol rehabilitation, but I have concerns about the way and the manner in which it is carried out. When I spoke previously on this matter I was criticised by the member for Greatorex a fair bit because I did not support the bill at the time the government was putting it forward. It was not because I did not support the bill, but I was concerned about the infrastructure that was available to those people who were going to be part of this alcohol mandatory rehabilitation scheme.
In my 10 minutes, I ask the minister what facilities there are at this stage at CAAAPU? When I visited CAAAPU earlier this year, there were no facilities available but there was a plan to put a number of second-hand demountables on-site. My concerns at that stage were that I felt they were a risk simply because they were not designed for reducing the possibility of self-harm or even death. Also, the area they were to be put in was not that secure for trying to retain people on-site.
Also, when I visited Vendale, which is about 30 km south of Katherine, there was no facility at all for people under this scheme, and I was concerned there was also very little security. There is a chainmesh fence at the front. I am not sure if it is barbed wire or plain wire around the rest of the facility, which is okay for people who are there voluntarily, but if people are to be held there against their will then I was not particularly happy with the security of that facility since it is just up the road from the Stuart Highway. It would not be that hard to get a lift and go somewhere else.
I hope the medi-hotel, which we have had plenty of debate about, will go back to being what it was designed for. I am sure there are plenty of carers who come up with their spouses who would hope that facility is open, considering the squeeze on accommodation in the Darwin area at present. It would be interesting to hear what stage the government is at in finding other facilities for the Mandatory Alcohol Rehabilitation Centre.
I visited what was called the secure care centre at Holtze the other day to drop off a newsletter, and I noticed the barrels on the top of the fences seem to have gone. I am unsure whether that facility has moved totally out of the possibility of being used for alcohol mandatory rehabilitation. I am unsure of the status of that facility at present. I thought that facility might be a reasonable option. There was some talk in parliament about it being used for youth. I thought I would put that in as something out of left field, you might say.
I was going to ask the minster during Question Time: up until now how many people are in alcohol mandatory rehabilitation? Could the minister tell us where they are and in what facilities they are being held? How many people have gone missing? They are the things we need to know. Have there been any people who have finished their three-month course? I do not have the date when this started, but I am interested to know if anyone has finished the course. If so, could the minister give us a report on whether there has been any change in that person’s life? There has been much discussion about the effectiveness of this program. We talk about very low percentages of success, even with people who submit to voluntarily rehabilitation. If there are some people who have completed their course, it would be interesting to find out whether there has been any change in that person’s life.
The minister made some statements when this matter was being debated. I will stand to be corrected, but I think she spoke about the possibility of 800 people being involved in mandatory alcohol rehabilitation. When the minister speaks, it would be good to hear about the numbers we have and how they compares with the estimate. The reason I ask is that I wonder whether the concept of being put in mandatory rehabilitation may have scared people away from being picked up. Obviously it does not take long for word to get around that if I get picked up three times I am headed for three months inside a facility where I will not be allowed to leave.
Someone spoke to me yesterday about smoking in prisons. They said there has been a bit of a drop off in the number of people going to prison and they were wondering whether the new rules about no smoking in prison might have made people think twice. I ask the minister whether the number of people being picked up is different than the government estimated they would be picking up at this stage of the program.
I would have liked to have put a little more thought into the 10 minutes. However, with about three or four different topics on this afternoon, it has been a bit hard to put a little more work into this response to the minister’s statement. I reiterate, as much as I know the government has come in for criticism about this, I support mandatory rehabilitation where part of that principle is based on compassion.
If it is just about getting people off the street, that is it, but I do not accept that is all it is about. It is moving people off the streets and trying to give the public some peace, but it is also about trying to rehabilitate people, and giving them a chance to think about where they are going in their future life, especially where it concerns the effect of alcohol on their lives. I also think we need to do it as – this might sound a bit strange – these people are my brothers and sisters, and we should help those people. That is where the compassion has to be and why I have always said the facilities have to be more than just a room. They have to be a place that is nearly a home because that reflects the compassion that needs to go with this process. We are – ‘we’ the parliament – making a pretty big change in people’s lives and change in the way we deal with people, because we are basically arresting people who have not committed a crime. To put it bluntly, it is fairly dramatic legislation that goes against normal human rights, but if it is done for the purpose for which it should be done – to assist people to try to overcome an alcohol addiction, to try to give them a chance to turn their lives around, to give the community some peace and quiet, and show, as a society, some compassion for these people who find it difficult under their own steam to change their lives – then I support this type of legislation.
Madam Speaker, I am interested in listening to some answers to those questions from the minister about how this mandatory alcohol rehabilitation program is progressing at present.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Alcohol Rehabilitation): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for his contribution to this debate, and the member for Fannie Bay who contributed way back in August. This has been a dramatic era in the Northern Territory’s mechanisms and strategies for addressing alcohol problems in our community.
In answer to a statement made by the member for Nelson, we are, indeed, making big changes to people’s lives. Just three months since the inception of this alcohol mandatory treatment program, we are seeing some dramatic changes in people’s lives. The stories I am hearing are very positive.
It was a bold initiative, one that we, on this side of the Chamber, the government, are extremely proud of. It came about during our time in opposition. We spent many hours of our time in shadow Cabinet debating and creating what we felt was a different policy that was required to try to address the chronic problem of alcohol abuse in our community. What we came up with was a powerful and new initiative called our Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Program.
We did it because there was a gap in the strategies laid out by the former Labor government. Their strategies were all about reducing the supply of alcohol. We agree that has to be part of an overall package, but what was seriously lacking were strategies around reducing demand for alcohol, particularly for people with chronic long-term serious alcohol problems.
Our strategy is a balanced one, never seen before in the Northern Territory and never seen on this scale anywhere in Australia. It is very exciting. We are in our initial stages of the roll-out and implementation of alcohol mandatory treatment in the Northern Territory. We have completed phase one, which was a very rapid roll-out of this program. It saw the setting up of the mandatory treatment program in Darwin which, as the member for Nelson stated, is located at the medi-hotel, the short-term accommodation facility at Royal Darwin Hospital.
This was always to be a temporary location for alcohol mandatory treatment in Darwin, and we have seen that this facility is adequate. It is not ideal. I have been very open about the fact it lacks in some ways, but it is adequate to get us through until we can move into the low-security unit at Berrimah prison, which will be ideal. There is plenty of space there. It has full visibility of people coming and going from their rooms and participating in programs. It has good security. People cannot abscond.
That has been a problem at the medi-hotel which, once again, I have not kept secret. We were always told by the existing residential alcohol rehabilitation providers throughout the Territory that people will take off and flee from treatment, because at times they would much prefer to be elsewhere with their family. Some, obviously, go back to the grog. However, the medi-hotel will suffice until we move to Berrimah in August next year.
We have also assisted CAAAPU, the Central Australian Aboriginal Alcohol Program Unit, to expand its facility for the specific needs of our mandatory program. They have been brilliant in coming on board. I cannot speak highly enough of the work of Philip Allnutt and Eileen Hoosan and their team in helping us roll out 20 beds on their 10-acre block outside Alice Springs in the rural area. They have an existing residential alcohol rehabilitation program and have embraced the opportunity to test themselves and take on this enormous challenge.
I visited CAAAPU last Friday morning and, ironically, I was back again on Saturday afternoon showing a visitor to Central Australia, Warren Mundine, Chairperson of the Prime Minister’s new Indigenous Advisory Committee. I was showing him the alcohol mandatory treatment centre. With us was his wife, Elizabeth, and the Chief Minister. There is much interest across the country in what we are doing. Warren Mundine and his wife were very impressed. We met many of the weekend staff at CAAAPU who were able to describe how the programs function there and told stories of how people are changing their lives in the mandatory side of the treatment service, but also in the non-mandatory side. It is a beautiful facility and I encourage all members of parliament, when they come to Alice Springs, to ring CAAAPU and ask if they can look around. There is nothing to criticise about what they have established.
The member for Nelson had concerns about the early building of the mandatory treatment side of the establishment at CAAAPU. In the early stages it looked quite crude, as if it would not be particularly comfortable for people staying there. I can assure you it is very comfortable now. People are settling in and most appear to be enjoying their time participating in rehabilitation at CAAAPU.
The CAAAPU facility in Alice Springs goes hand in hand with the assessment centre located at the secure care facility on the periphery of the corrections precinct at the Alice Springs Corrections Centre. This is, again, a magnificent facility. It was set up for a slightly different purpose, but it is modern and caters for all the needs of people who are feeling unwell and possibly requiring special care and attention. That is exactly what they get at the secure care facility where people are assessed. It is now known as the Alice Springs Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Assessment Centre.
CAAAPU is full. Our 20 mandatory treatment beds are full. I note a media release issued yesterday from an Alice Springs ABC journalist, Anthony Stewart, saying, ‘Customer waiting list at grog rehab full house’. That is a good news story.
We have 10 women and 10 men in CAAAPU undergoing mandatory treatment. Added to that, we have our first two graduates leaving the program within the next two weeks. The very first person to come into alcohol mandatory treatment across the Northern Territory was a woman who was taken into CAAAPU early in July. Her three months is just about up. Her 12-week mandatory rehabilitation program finishes very soon and she will be assisted in the community as part of an after-care program. We are told that the Safe and Sober Program run by Congress in Alice Springs will possibly be taking her as one of their clients who they will help in the community to, hopefully, stay off the grog.
I am going back and forth a bit, but the medi-hotel has had security issues, there is no doubt about it. We are investing some more money into increasing the security of the medi-hotel over the next couple of months. It is not just about increasing the security but minimising the risk for people who feel like absconding. We do not want them to hurt themselves in an endeavour to flee from the centre, so we are trying to address that issue as soon as possible. As I said, this is a temporary measure so we are not inclined to spend a huge amount of money on anything to do with the medi-hotel, given we will be out of there in less than 12 months’ time.
There have been many challenges involved in the roll-out of alcohol mandatory treatment in the Northern Territory, and there have been some interesting revelations about the people we are capturing. One was that we knew these people would be sick, but most of them have a range of chronic and acute conditions which need to be addressed. They come into our assessment service after the trigger, which is being taken into protective custody three times in two months, and their alcohol problem is assessed. They are also assessed for their physical and mental health.
We are finding these people are physically very unwell. They are people who have been drinking for a very long time, and often that means their money has gone solely on buying alcohol and they have not looked after themselves at all. These people are often very undernourished, and some of them are emaciated. They have diabetes, like most people who drink alcohol excessively, and do not take care of themselves. Most of these people, of course, are Aboriginal, as we forecast they would be. Many of them have other very serious complaints. Some of them have liver conditions and renal failure to varying extents. Most of them have sexually transmitted diseases or infections.
One of the great challenges we have encountered when we take these people into the assessment centre is commencing the diagnosis and treatment of these conditions they have in addition to their alcohol problem. This is taking up a great deal of time. The doctors in the assessment centres are very busy. In Alice Springs at the weekend the eight beds in the assessment centre were full. The team in the Alice Springs assessment centre was working very hard to not only assess the alcohol aspect of these people, but also the physical problems.
After going before the tribunal where an order is made, these people are transferred into the treatment centres and much of the initial focus is on treating their physical conditions, their chronic diseases and the acute conditions they have picked up along the way. This involves transferring or accompanying people to medical appointments, whether they are at the Royal Darwin Hospital, Congress in Alice Springs, or other medical centres in Katherine and throughout the Territory. This takes a great deal of time and is something we did not forecast very accurately in the planning stages. It is not a huge issue or problem, but it is something we have realised through our experiences over the last three months: the need for people to attend many medical appointments because they are so unwell.
The member for Nelson asked about the secure care facility at Holtze. To be perfectly frank, we did look very hard at how we could use that facility for alcohol mandatory treatment. It is exactly the same as the secure care facility in Alice Springs, of which we use half for the assessment of alcohol mandatory treatment. The problem with the service in Darwin is it is much bigger, and as time goes on it will need to process many more people than in Alice Springs. The secure care facility at Holtze, we feel, was not big enough. Given that, like the medi-hotel, it was going to be a temporary solution, we were not inclined to spend a huge amount of money on expanding or changing it.
We saw that as a potential waste of money. We have inherited a very tight fiscal situation in the Northern Territory from the former Labor government so we are not going to waste money. We want to ensure whatever we invest in the medi-hotel or at CAAAPU will benefit people in the long term, whether it is in the case of the medi-hotel alcohol clients or the step-up, step-down clients who will be moving in there from August next year, as originally planned.
The secure care facility at Holtze is not a health facility; it is a Department of Children and Families facility. I will not talk about what their intention is for that facility, only to say that it will not be used in any way for alcohol mandatory treatment at this stage.
The overall success of the program is an enormously contentious issue. The opposition will stick to their line that success will only be about 100% abstinence, and that is it. Into the future, they will no doubt maintain that unless people stay off the grog forever, then we have failed miserably. It would really pay for people who are genuinely interested in this phase to familiarise themselves with the general means of measuring success within residential alcohol rehabilitation services. It is really about teaching people how to live with alcohol, how to abstain if they can, but also how to drink sensibly and in a more controlled fashion, maintaining their health, relationships and their ability to function in the community.
One of the things I have personally enjoyed about my travel or adventure through this process is fully understanding, as the member for Nelson highlighted in his speech, it is about the person, the individual. It is about them having a unique experience around drinking and why they drink, and then rehabilitation being a very personal experience. It is a clinical experience but it is more about a person’s journey through coming to terms with their problem, then making some very different decisions about how they lead their lives. At the end of the day, we know some people will go through rehabilitation once and change their drinking habits and behaviours and proceed to lead a much richer and healthier life, but for other people it will take many times or opportunities to go through rehabilitation before they get to that point, if they ever do.
Success is something we would prefer to define very broadly, not just because we are trying to demonstrate to the opposition that it is a great success, but because to define it narrowly is stripping back and taking away that very personal experience and journey which is rehabilitation. It is a tough gig. It is not something I would choose to go through.
While I was at CAAAPU the other day I was introduced to most of the women in mandatory rehabilitation. I recognised most of those women. I have lived in Alice Springs for 20 years. I have seen those women on the streets. They have had tough lives, and some of them were going through quite a tough experience in rehabilitation. While I was there, one lady was very angry and agitated. I imagine for some people it would be absolutely horrendous.
I am not going to give figures on how we are travelling today. I intend to do that later at a different opportunity during the sittings. Suffice to say, the numbers are building …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister for Alcohol Rehabilitation, it is 5.30 pm. In accordance with the rules, it is General Business Day.
Mrs LAMBLEY: I will round up. Can I have two minutes?
Madam SPEAKER: No. Would you like to conclude your remarks at a later time?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes. I am a bit deceived by the clock up there. I thought I had two to three minutes.
Madam SPEAKER: No, it is 5.30 pm on the clock.
Debate adjourned.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 103, I notify the Assembly that I withdraw the motion regarding water rights on today’s Notice Paper at General Business Notice No 1.
Continued from 28 August 2013.
Mr TOLLNER (Business): Madam Speaker, I continue my remarks from the last General Business Day speaking about firefighters and the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Scheme and the review that is happening.
Before I get into the political aspects of what is happening, we have reviewed this bill put forward by the opposition. It is a poorly drafted bill. There are no transitional provisions in the bill, and it fails to distinguish between volunteers and full-time firefighters. It is important the bill should do these things, because without distinguishing between volunteers and full-time firefighters, one can conceivably see a situation where an individual was a volunteer for one fire and 25 years later has the ability to come back and put a claim in for throat cancer, for instance, and would possibly be eligible for compensation. It lacks detail in that regard.
The issue of transitional provisions relates a great deal to retrospectivity of claims. For instance, there should be some transitional provisions which identify people who may have worked many years ago in the fire department and many years later develop cancer, and whether that should result in a claim for compensation. That is another reason the government cannot support the bill.
However, as I said during the last parliamentary sittings, we are very sensitive to the concerns of firemen and others in emergency services. I am keen to see the review of the Northern Territory Workers Compensation Schemehappen quickly. I am keenly sympathetic to the plight of firemen in our community and am happy to support their efforts where possible.
Last week I met with United Voice and several firefighters affected by cancer, and I am grateful for the meeting. It was a constructive meeting and was an opportunity to share our different points of view. I made a commitment at that meeting to go back to the department and ascertain whether there was any possibility of pulling the aspects relating to firefighters out of that review, have it done faster and put into legislation quicker. I took the matter up with WorkSafe and asked them to look at it and provide me with a brief. I intend to share this brief with the people from United Voice and the firefighters. In fact, I have just given them a draft, but I will be writing a formal letter and attaching the brief. I am happy to table that brief for the enlightenment of this Chamber.
The brief says there are some difficulties in taking this out of the review and I will quote part of it:
I read that out because it is important for people to understand we are taking this issue seriously and want to see some of the debates that occur in other parts of the country. I am quite cognisant of what has occurred in Tasmania and am sympathetic to the plight of firies in the Northern Territory.
In relation to the workers rehabilitation and compensation scheme review that is currently occurring, there has been some concern that this review is taking some time. I fully understand that concern because this is the first time the scheme has been reviewed in some 30-odd years. We want to do quite a comprehensive review which will take some time.
However, the review has been ongoing since March this year. The people doing the review are well and truly down the track with it. I am advised a preliminary issues paper will be completed by 11 November, which is a month away. There is an expectation legislation will be introduced in the early part of next year and, by middle of next year, it is our hope legislation will be passed in this regard.
I can only stress again I am very sympathetic to the plight of the firies and am very keen to do what we can to assist them. Having said that, there has been an element of politics played in this issue …
Mr Gunner: No, there has not.
Mr TOLLNER: Absolutely, member for Fannie Bay!
As I said, this review has been ongoing since March this year. I take note that my good friend, the member for Nelson, has availed himself of briefings in relation to this issue. He has been briefed by the department. United Voice and the firies have met with both the Chief Minister and I and should have a pretty good idea where our thinking is on this matter.
However, I find it highly and completely offensive that the opposition would play politics with firemen. The fact of the matter is the opposition had 11 years in government; they have had plenty of time to act on this. You can see what has occurred since then. They have had absolutely no input into this review process. In fact, United Voice’s submission went to this review in April 2013 and made no reference to firefighters. They made another submission yesterday fundamentally supporting the opposition’s bill.
Until a couple of weeks ago, no one in the opposition was remotely interested in this issue, not a soul. Why? What would motivate the opposition to come in here with the only piece of legislation they have had in the last 12 months, two weeks before a federal election, screaming blue murder saying, ‘We have to do something’? You had 11 years to do something. You had a great opportunity to have input into this review, and you have done nothing. However, two weeks out from a federal election you mustered up a large number of firemen, came in here and played political games with them. It was all over the media everywhere. There was no briefing, no coming to talk to us, no saying you had an interest in this in any stage at all. You just came in here, lobbed a bill in front of the parliament which, I have to say now that I have had the opportunity to have a good hard read of it, was quickly constructed, poorly drafted, and was brought into the parliament without any consultation with anyone. Absolutely appalling! It was simply a political tool to draw attention to yourselves in a federal election. It was absolutely shameful that you would deal with firemen in that way.
As I said when I spoke last time in relation to this bill, we are sympathetic to firemen. Everybody in the Northern Territory appreciates the work firemen do. We only want to see the best for them, but we will not be caught up in your political games. If you do not think we can see political games when they are coming, you are in dream world. Not only did you knock up a poorly drafted bill, you lobbed in here two weeks before a federal election with an issue you have never talked about, but had 11 years to do something about, demanding that we support your bill. I find that and your audacity in involving fireman to do that offensive. It is appalling behaviour from a desperate opposition.
We will not be supporting this bill. First, it is poorly drafted and is bad legislation, and that is the fundamental reason we will not support it. Second, you want to play political games. We are well and truly down the track of this workers compensation review. It would still be a great opportunity for you to get in, get a briefing, and put your two cents’ worth in with the local people who are running the review. Mr George Roussos, a respected lawyer, and Mr Mark Crossin, a respected advocate for workers’ rights, are conducting the review. It is completely above board and transparent. I encourage you to have input into that review to ensure the people you purport to represent are adequately represented.
I thank the member for Nelson for his proactive manner in analysing the merits of this bill and for seeking a briefing. He has gone a hell of a long way further than any member of the opposition has, and he deserves some credit for that.
Madam Speaker, as I said, the government will not be supporting this bill. I reiterate that we are supportive of firefighters and those in emergency services; they do a great job for the Territory. We rely on them heavily and we all want to see the best for them. This government is committed to doing just that.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, it is with great disappointment we saw yet another rant and rave from the Deputy Chief Minister, instead of dealing with this with the appropriate gravity this issue definitely deserves. For him to play the grubby political slanging we just saw is incredibly disappointing. We had hoped after your last display you would have taken some more time to consider your situation. Sadly, that is not the case.
I welcome the firefighters, members of their families and their union representatives here, because for us in Labor, union is not a dirty word. Union is not an organisation that we bash, we will work with you in solidarity to ensure people are adequately covered in all of their workplace issues, including the very important issues of compensation.
I thank my colleague, the member for Fannie Bay, the shadow minister, for working diligently with the firefighters of the Northern Territory and United Voice to bring this legislation before the House. We obviously did have discussions in our Caucus around legislation and what would be our first bill to introduce as an opposition. We felt united as a team, that this is the most appropriate legislation to bring forward to the House. We felt it had, at its core, a decency that meant we are extending a hand to help those who have spent their working lives helping our society and community.
We see firefighters put themselves in incredibly dangerous circumstances in their jobs, day in and day out. We see the stress they go through, the trauma they witness, and the dangerous circumstances they find themselves in. We understand the stress their families go through and see the consequences of the incredibly important work they do. We recognise, whether they are professional full-time firefighters, auxiliary firefighters, or volunteers in our rural bushfire brigades, they all put themselves at risk and in harm’s way for the benefit of our community.
It is important we understand that the timing of this legislation is not a political ploy. It is work we considered early on when getting into opposition. The shadow minister then diligently worked with the key stakeholders: the firefighters and the United Voice union. We then went through the parliamentary process in drafting the bill. I repudiate the view held by the Deputy Chief Minister that this legislation is flawed in its drafting. It is not flawed; it is modelled on the Commonwealth legislation with the addition of retrospectivity. Being a lawmaker of some 12 years, I understand the difficulties of retrospectivity, and we did not put that in there lightly. We put retrospectivity into this legislation because we understand that today there are important Territorians in our community who are suffering the consequences of having worked in a toxic environment and are suffering cancer and severe illness as a result of that work. Retrospectivity for us was tested and deemed to be fair and reasonable.
We are a small community, and we have a view on how many individuals retrospectivity this would affect and, therefore, what some potential quantum of retrospectivity could be. That being said, we do not have access to Treasury, so it was not done to the nth degree. We assessed all of that, weighed it conscientiously and understood it is a reasonable element to add to the legislation. It will not break the bank of the Northern Territory. It will not be an unreasonable demand on the resources of the Northern Territory to provide retrospectivity in this legislation. It is not flawed technically; it is modelled on the Commonwealth legislation.
If there is a view and a concern around retrospectivity, then the government needs to come clean and be honest about that. If there is not, then point to any clauses within the bill that have a significant flaw in their structure, because, as I said, it was modelled on Commonwealth legislation.
As to, ‘Labor in government had 11 years to deal with this’, my understanding is the Commonwealth legislation was passed in late 2007. Discussions occurred with the then Chief Minister, the previous member for Wanguri, Paul Henderson, in early 2012. He gave his commitment it would be an election commitment from us. We would walk in, in government, and pass legislation providing for this coverage for our firefighters. We had publically stated that intention, and we are fulfilling that commitment, albeit in opposition, having extended the hand to government to try to do something in a bipartisan manner that would yield a result that in any reasonable test or view would be considered a reasonable thing to do.
I was born in Darwin, and as a child growing up in Darwin I spent much of my time in the household of the former firefighter and union delegate, Robert Bonson. He fought valiantly for his mates in the fire service and taught me many things that I hold dear and carry through my life on ethics, integrity, compassion and understanding the work firefighters do. There are many habits I carry in my life because Robert taught me them. I was treated as his daughter and am incredibly proud to have had that learning in my life in the work the Darwin firies did through that period of the 1960s and 1970s. It was very real and happened when I used to eat his fantastic cooking, because my mother was possibly the world’s worst cook. Thank God, Robert was an awesome cook.
He made me understood at a very young age the genuine dangers that occurred. Even at that young age it struck me they would go to work in these quite open vehicles with hardly any protection gear around them. What you see with a firefighter today, compared to what you saw when I was growing up as a child in Darwin, is chalk and cheese. We know there is protective clothing and gear now which they don when they go into hazardous situations. We know dangerous goods legislation requires things to be labelled as best they can so people go into a situation where there is a fire blazing knowing what toxic fumes are there. All those toxic issues occurred in those decades of the 1960s, 1970s and into the 1980s, without the balance of protective equipment and the graphic recognition of the dangerous goods labelling.
Our firefighters, the people we know, the people we hold dear, and for some of us the people we grew up amongst, walked into that environment and bear the consequences of it today in the toll it is taking on their health. They are strong men in our services who are fighting these illnesses.
At the very least we could have taken a bipartisan approach today and passed this legislation. If there was a technical flaw the government saw in transition provisions, bring an amendment, because that is what occurs with legislation in this House all the time. When legislation sits on the books it is there from one month to another for a reason. If there is a technical issue and the Deputy Chief Minister said, ‘I did not see the transition provisions I wanted’, bring an amendment. Change it to suit your technical concerns rather than say, ‘We are not doing this. We are not supporting it because we find it flawed in its structure’ without going into any detail other than vaguely mentioning transition provisions which, quite frankly, could easily be in an amendment schedule attached to the legislation. That could easily have occurred.
Put that excuse aside and you get down to the political football excuse we heard from the Deputy Chief Minister. We repudiate that completely. We are moving in sync with the time frame jurisdictions are moving in all around our nation to recognise that whilst we have many professions which, by the nature of their work, require specific coverage within workers compensation, firefighters stand out above and beyond the rest because of the nature of their work entering hazardous environments, breathing toxic fumes. That is why the Commonwealth has moved separately. That is why Tasmania moved separately in early 2012. That is why we are proposing the Northern Territory moves separately.
Regarding the review into the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, I have received the Department of Business memorandum just tabled by the Deputy Chief Minister. One of the skills I have, having worked in the media for some years, is I can read incredibly quickly. I have read it. I went to what is in this which genuinely prevents the government from accepting this legislation today. Inherently, there is nothing technically in this that prevents a bipartisan approach today. What is in it that would prevent the Chief Minister, as Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services, from pulling it out of their review and fast-tracking it?
I quote from the Minister for Business’s memo tabled in the parliament today:
That is it? That is why you will not fast-track them because ‘it is considered inappropriate to single them out’? By who, minister? By the person who signed this, the CE? Has the CE of your department engaged in any discussions with the firefighters around why they have been singled out in the Commonwealth jurisdiction and the Tasmanian jurisdiction and why we are proposing to single them out in this jurisdiction? Has there been any genuine deep-seated consideration around this issue of singling them out other than to say it is considered inappropriate? On that basis, as minister you said, ‘That is okay, I will sign off on that memo’, even though the memo is not signed or dated by the minister? Is that it? Is that what it takes to knock something genuinely reasonable on the head? That is deeply disappointing.
You are not supporting the legislation so it will not pass today. Be a better person than you displayed today, Deputy Chief Minister, and reconsider the time line of June 2014 for introduction of workers compensation legislation that may or may not pick up the issues contained in this legislation. If there is a genuine desire by the government to deliver on the coverage provided by the legislation before the House, both in its detail as well as its retrospectivity, and undertake that work, then pull it out of the broader review and bring the time line forward. Claim it as your own work, and you will have the support of the opposition. If you want your own legislation with your own name to it fast-tracked out of the existing review, you will have our support. We care enough for the people who care enough about us, who put their lives at risk to save our lives and our property in hazardous and risky circumstances, who then go on to contract diseases that threaten their lives and means they require significant medical support. We care enough to say they deserve their own status within workers compensation.
We also believe it is very real and, right now, today in the Northern Territory, there is a handful of Territorians suffering who should be covered, who have earned the right to be covered. A responsible government which could show some compassion could provide that coverage.
Again, I thank my colleague, the member for Fannie Bay, for bringing this forward.
This is no free gift. There are processes within this legislation that provide the well-established links between firefighting and certain classes of cancers and point out the support firefighters can expect. This furphy led by the Deputy Chief Minister that someone can fight a fire once, and the legislation will apply to them – wrong! The government, of course, can challenge any matter brought before it. That was simply and utterly a furphy.
The checks and balances that test the descriptions are all in this legislation, which makes it fair, reasonable and just. Just because Labor introduced it and is pursuing it, you are saying you cannot accept it because you believe it is technically flawed, although you have brought no amendments. Then, you said you are doing a review, you do not want to single firefighters out, when firefighters have been genuinely singled out in other jurisdictions moving to cover them. The case has been put, heard and won. There are precedents.
Just because you hold all of those views and you did your rant today – try one more thing. Go away and reconsider your actions of today. Show some compassion. I believe there is a role in government for compassion, particularly in leadership. Change your mind on that aspect of keeping it in the broader review until June 2014, bring it out, dust it off, fast-track it, give it retrospectivity, and you will have our full and total support.
Thank you to the firefighters and families. I apologise, in some way, for the behaviour of some politicians.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I make comment on the bill before us. At the outset, sometimes there is a third point of view when you are an Independent. I support in principle what has been put forward, but I have some concerns about part of the legislation. For that reason, I will probably abstain from voting. I say to firefighters that this legislation needs to come into the parliament and be discussed. I hope it will not be very long before it is passed as law in this parliament. However, I believe it needs some more work before that happens. I will give my reasons why and will also be asking the government to give some guarantees, as they say they support the principle but will not support the bill today.
I also thank the government for its briefing. Work Health gave me a briefing last night and today. I also thank the member for Fannie Bay for bringing this legislation forward, which is part of the opposition’s job. I also thank the member for Fannie Bay for giving me his views on the legislation. He has listened to some of my concerns.
Of course, I read the bill and the second reading speech. My understanding is the first place to introduce this legislation was the Commonwealth government, and that has been in place for some time under Comcare. The only other place that has passed this legislation is the Tasmanian government. I spent some time this afternoon looking at the bill and reading a fair bit of the debate. There was quite a bit of debate in the Tasmanian parliament. When I say debate, I do not think anyone in the Tasmanian government or parliament was opposing the principle of what was put forward, but they raised a number of issues.
One of those issues was the definition of voluntary firefighters in relation to this bill. There was much discussion about whether volunteers should be equal with career firefighters in relation to matters of claim that could be put to a worker’s compensation claim. What came out of that is best summed up after that debate by the UFUA media release which said:
It went on to say:
Volunteer firefighters were not included in the Commonwealth legislation:
It then went on to congratulate the minister and the members of the union for passing this legislation.
The volunteer firefighters do a fantastic job in my area and throughout the Northern Territory, whether they are working for the Bushfire Council NT or the Northern Territory Fire Service.
As it is, this legislation more or less says everybody is equal. I am unsure if that is a good thing. That is not saying people are not entitled to compensation, but that part of the bill needs more work done on it. I would like to go back to the volunteers and get their opinion on that issue also. Tasmania debated it; if you read their debate in parliament you will see it was an issue that was debated. When I read the UFUA media release, it is obvious they see there is a difference between volunteer fire brigade people and career fire brigade people when talking about this legislation.
Whether volunteers or the career firefighters in the Northern Territory agree with that, I am not sure. However, there is some doubt as to whether the way it is worded in this existing legislation is fair and reasonable, and it needs some work done on it. That is one area about which I have a concern.
From the briefings I have had, my understanding is if you had retrospectivity it could go back forever and a day. I have spoken to the Deputy Chief Minister and have said that I know there are a number of cases of people who are sick who worked for the fire brigade for many years. As a compromise, I have asked the minister to at least say he will support a claim by those firefighters as if this presumptive legislation existed today. I am sure the government has the power to do that. That would at least give those people some comfort while this went through a review process. My understanding is the review process is coming towards the end – I think it has a month or two to go – but will not be looked at properly or come back to parliament until next year.
I take up the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that in light of what has been put forward today, the government could speed up some of that. I would not like to see a shortening of the time in which people are able to put forward their comments on a review. That is not the speeding up you need, because many times we complain governments do not give enough time for people to have input into a review. Perhaps the process after the review could be sped up, especially in the form of the legislative program being brought before this parliament. That is something the government should take notice of because that is a good response to what is happening.
As I said, I know our firefighters do a fantastic job. It is not just firefighting, of course. They are the first response people when it comes to car accidents and terrible things that most of us do not have to face. In this case, we are generally dealing more with the effects of chemical fires and all the matters some years ago for which many of these older fire brigade people would have had less equipment to protect them.
Today, we know uniforms are much better than they used to be. We know breathing apparatus is much better. We know there is equipment to limit the possibility of people being made sick by their work environment. We are talking about some of the older firefighters who have worked for such a long time in the department when some of this equipment would have been quite primitive. There is a fair chance those people were in an atmosphere which was not conducive to their health.
It is obvious the government will not support the opposition today. I ask the minister, as a sign of good faith, if the government supports in principle what is being put forward but would like to do it as part of the review, how about giving a guarantee that you would be willing to look at those people who would have liked to use this legislation as a means of obtaining compensation for illnesses they believe they acquired during their time as firefighters? That would be a sign of being fair dinkum in relation to support for our firefighters, but at the same time would say you need a little more time to ensure this legislation is workable and fair to all parties. That would be reasonable.
I thank the opposition for bringing forward this legislation. As I said, sometimes there is a privilege in being an Independent. There is always a third opinion. In this case, I fully support the principle behind this legislation. It is something which will happen throughout the rest of Australia. It is in a number of parliaments at the moment being discussed. Perhaps if it is passed in South Australia before the review is finished we should be looking at what they are doing. I presume that all states’ members of parliament do what the leader of opposition business did. He looked at the Commonwealth and thought that was a good idea. He obviously looked at ACT and the aviation industry in relation to this type of legislation. Read the media release from the UFUA. Their view is that the parliament of Tasmania probably looked at that legislation and they have come up with what they think is legislation suitable for them. It would also be interesting to see what South Australia comes up with.
Madam Speaker, that is all I would like to say on this subject.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I support this bill. Before I start my speech I put on the record what a disgrace the total lack of support by this current government for this important bill brought forward by the member for Fannie Bay is. The fact that we have two members out of 15 in this Chamber …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Johnston, you do not refer to members who are in or out of the parliament. Please refrain from that.
Mr VOWLES: I apologise, Madam Speaker.
The total lack of support by this government for such an important bill raised in this Chamber is a disgrace.
The firefighters of the Northern Territory – indeed firefighters around the world – risk their lives each and every day to keep us safe. Firefighters protect our property, homes, workplaces, small businesses, motor vehicles, livestock, and regions. Even more importantly, they protect our loved ones, often putting themselves in harm’s way to save the people we love. Firefighting is a proud, respected and noble profession in some of the world’s toughest working conditions. We must do more than honour firefighters with mere words, we must ensure we honour them with our actions.
Firefighters work in hazardous circumstances. Most of us work in fairly certain or predictable circumstances. It is a good bet that tomorrow I will drive to parliament to work in the same office I work in every day. There is a very good chance I will be safe in my workplace. I will not be placed in any dangerous situations or exposed to hazardous materials. This is the reality for most Australians. Our firefighters do not always have the same certainty. They work according to different sets of conditions which change every day.
Think of some of the variables in the day-to-day work of a firefighter, such as the weather, wind, the type of property, the types of materials burning and the types of chemicals burning. It requires a high level of skill and tenacity to be a firefighter. Add that to an appropriate amount of courage to place yourself in life-threatening situations. Every week, Territorians are touched by their dedication. We thank you.
You would be hard pressed to find anybody who did not like a firefighter. They are one of the most respected and trusted frontline workers. Being a firefighter carries significant risks. There are the immediate risks of being in an operational situation. There are also long-term risks to health and wellbeing. We know from the evidence that firefighters have high mortality rates. We know they also have more adverse health outcomes than any people in the workforce.
A United States study found the workplace fatality rate of firefighters is 17 per 100 000. That compares with five per 100 000 for other types of workers. Various studies, both here and abroad, also show that firefighters have an elevated risk of cancers. This includes cancer of the colon, kidneys, testicular, skin and prostate, in addition to myeloma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. This is due to exposure to hazardous and carcinogenic materials in the line of duty.
As mentioned earlier, most of us turn up to work in safe and predictable workplace environments. Our employers have an obligation to ensure their employees engage in their task in a safe environment. Safety in the workplace is a cause championed and delivered by the great Labor movement of Australia. As a Labor member of parliament, I salute the trade unions and workers of today and yesterday who have fought hard to make safer work places a reality for most Australians. Employers must keep their workers safe.
The same principle applies to our firefighters. The Northern Territory government must keep its employees safe, and this includes Northern Territory firefighters. Where it cannot keep its employees safe it must ensure they are able to access compensation for damages. It has been well demonstrated that firefighters have elevated risks of illness and disease through exposure to work. We cannot tolerate a situation where men and women who have put themselves in harm’s way for the protection of others are left to fend for themselves if disaster strikes. That is not the Australian way.
What happens at the moment is a firefighter seeking to obtain compensation for a disease must establish that his or her employment was a major significant contributing factor. This is how it stands today. Amidst all the stress and anxiety associated with a life-threatening illness, a firefighter must prove it. Often this can be difficult.
If passed, this bill will change all that. This will insert a rebuttable presumption. This is a presumption that certain illnesses or diseases had been contracted by a worker in the course of his or her employment. This will bring our legislation in line with the Commonwealth and Tasmania which have already introduced similar provisions.
As the member for Fannie Bay pointed out in his second reading speech, it will include a scheduled listing of relevant diseases and the cancers known to be caused by fire exposure. Importantly, the schedule will provide flexibility to prescribe further diseases if the evidence supports these further down the track.
In conclusion, I say this bill is fair. It is also the right thing to do. It is fair because firefighters work each and every day to protect us. They do so by placing themselves in risky situations. They do so with tremendous skill and courage. We know from the evidence available to us that firefighters work in hazardous conditions; they are often exposed to carcinogenic substances. We know from the evidence that firefighters have an elevated risk of certain types of cancers compared to other cohorts of the population. It is only fair that if they honour us in difficult situations, we should also honour them in the difficult situations they have to face.
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Fannie Bay for introducing this bill. I thank, on behalf of all Territorians, the Northern Territory firies.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, first, I acknowledge the firies and their families up there in the gallery. It is important to be here today for this debate.
I support this bill which aims to give Northern Territory firefighters the support they deserve should they develop cancer as a result of doing their job. This is an important bill we are debating that will go a long way in helping firefighters and volunteer firefighters and their families have some comfort going forward in their careers, knowing if they have to battle cancer as a result of doing their job, the Northern Territory government, their employer, will be there for them.
Presumptive legislation will be a significant change for our firefighters, and the Territory will be at the forefront with other jurisdictions putting these changes in place. Workers will be seeking coverage through the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act where their entitlements will be no different. It is just that there will be recognition in the act that, in the case of firefighters and volunteer firefighters who contract certain types of cancers, there will be a rebuttable presumption mechanism in place for them; that is, if the firefighters applying for workers compensation unfortunately get one of the prescribed cancers in the act, then the act will automatically give them the benefit of presumption that the illness has been contracted as a result of their firefighting work. If this is to be rebutted, it is now the employer charged with putting the case forward on why that should be.
While this specific type of presumptive legislation is relatively new in Australia, it is important to our local firies that we do this now. At a federal level, similar legislation was passed in 2011, and this year we have seen Tasmania pass similar legislation while Western Australia and South Australia have also introduced this type of legislation, as they too agree that firies are at greater risk of contracting certain cancers and should be supported if that happens.
Overseas, almost all Canadian jurisdictions have this type of legislation in place, and around half of the jurisdictions in the United States of America also have this recognition implemented for their firies.
As we can see in the gallery today, this is something our firefighters want and our firefighters battling cancer want as a result of their career need. This is a debate we should be having. We can help make the lives of some of our firefighters battling cancer a bit easier from this very day.
We all know and appreciate that firefighting is a unique job with some very specific challenges and requirements. Not anyone can be a career firie or a volunteer firie. It is a tough and highly competitive process to get through to become a career firefighter, because it demands physical strength and fitness, intelligence, problem solving skills, compassion and, quite frankly, a lot of guts.
Most members here would know a firie. I appreciate there are many people in this parliament who have worked alongside firies performing their duties for Territorians in their former careers and who have experienced firsthand some of the horrendous situations like road traumas, rescues and, of course, fires. Firefighters and their families know every day they go to work they could be exposed to life-threatening situations. Ultimately, it is their job to put their lives on the line to save lives, properties, and our environment.
A day in the job could mean fighting a house fire, a bush fire or an industrial fire, responding to a car crash, or cleaning up a chemical spill. All of these situations have their own hazards, and while our fire fighters are well trained and equipped, danger is a constant factor. They are exposed to dangerous materials, smoke and carcinogens that can lead to cancer.
Australia has long lived with the threat of bushfires and we have tragically seen some awful situations unfold in Victoria and Tasmania in recent years where we have all watched and heard about the horror firefighters had to go through to protect others.
An extreme example of what firefighters are put through, and one we would all vividly remember, are the images of 9/11 and the response of the New York firefighters. They were straight on the scene and in the Twin Towers trying to save people which, ultimately, cost so many of them their lives. For the months to follow they continued to work on-site which exposed them to all types of hazards and, as a result, many of them are now left dealing with health issues.
In the Territory, we know our firies and volunteer firefighters are up against it every year, especially in the Dry Season and in the long, hot dry summers of Central Australia. Because of that, it is widely recognised that people who fight fires are more likely to contract certain types of cancers as a result of performing their work.
Extensive work has been done federally and in other jurisdictions as part of their rationale for proceeding forward with presumptive legislation. In July 2011, the Senate referred the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection for Firefighters) Bill for an inquiry and report carried out by the federal Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee. Chapter 2 of that report went to the science of why presumptive legislation for firefighters is backed by medical research. The report stated:
This is about reversing the onus for the firie dealing with cancer to have to pinpoint where in their career, often spanning decades, they contracted cancer while performing their duties. This is important, given they would have attended hundreds of situations where they would have been exposed to factors that could have contributed to their cancer in their many years on the job. However, if the employer, the Territory government, believes the firefighter’s career did not contribute to the cancer then they can rebut it. They can put their case forward and appeal the claim, so there are avenues in that regard.
The plain fact is, if a public servant develops cancer as a result of their job then they should be taken care of within the workers compensation system. There should be care for them given they have been struck down with illness due to performing their duties to the benefit of Territorians. This bill is an acknowledgement of this fact and aims simply to take some of the pressure off the workers compensation process so that sick firefighters can focus on fighting cancer without the added stress of fighting with insurance companies.
Last sittings, when I sat in this Chamber and listened to the member for Fong Lim, the Deputy Chief Minister, respond to the introduction of this bill, I was left feeling very disappointed with how he handled it. With a gallery filled with Territory firefighters supporting this bill, including long-term members battling cancer, he did not even give them the opportunity to speak to the government directly about why they think this bill should be passed before indicating he would reject it.
He did not have the grace to adjourn it, to organise to meet these firefighters and hear them out and consider the bill before he outright rejected it. Instead, he said he found the introduction of this bill to be ‘shameful’ and said it ‘smacks of politics’.
Introducing a serious bill like this is not about playing politics; it is about doing the right thing. In my view, if the government votes against it, then that is truly the shameful act. This bill is fair; there is nothing unreasonable here. I understand the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act is being reviewed. That is fine. The government could easily support this bill now, with or without amendments, and make things easier for our firies who are battling cancer right now.
In the second reading speech for the Workers’ Compensation and Injury Management Amendment Bill introduced into the Western Australia parliament recently to put presumptive legislation in place for their firefighters, the Western Australian Attorney-General said:
This is, effectively, what this bill for the Territory firefighters does. It is practicable and workable here, just like Western Australia. The only thing stopping it now is government support. There is no good reason for the government not to support this bill. We have legislation ready to go right now. There is a precedent for this type of legislation. Regarding the firies and the government stance, the member for Fong Lim said during last sittings, and again today, that he is sympathetic to their case. Then, why not support this legislation now? It could be passed today. I support this legislation because it is the right thing to do.
I conclude my comments with another extract from the second reading speech on the introduction of presumptive legislation in Western Australia. It reads:
Madam Speaker, this is exactly what we are trying to do. It is disappointing that the government will not act now for our Territory firies and will not support this bill today. I thank the member for Fannie Bay for bringing this important bill forward.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of the member for Fannie Bay’s private members’ bill which seeks to amend the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. I thank him for bringing the bill before the House. I also thank and acknowledge the firefighters and their family members and advocates through United Voice who are also here in the gallery this evening witnessing this debate.
This bill is a genuine commitment to recognise that, by virtue of their work, firefighters are exposed to a much greater risk of developing certain types of cancer because of their exposure to hazardous materials; therefore, this should be recognised as work-related by rebuttal presumption and further recognising this presumption is based on scientific evidence, as outlined by the member for Fannie Bay.
If successful, the bill would entitle the firefighters, who also fight cancer, to compensation. I note legislation such as this exists at the Commonwealth and Tasmanian level and is being looked at in other jurisdictions.
I said ‘if successful’, but that has been wiped, given the contribution from this one member of the government, the member for Fong Lim, and his appalling grandstanding in the last sittings. In true and typical style, the member for Fong Lim slapped down the bill from the member for Fannie Bay on 28 August without even taking the opportunity to read and consider it, let alone discuss it with his Cabinet colleagues to arrive at a considered and informed position. To take debate straight to political posturing and to accuse the opposition of playing politics, in front of members of the fire service and their families in the public gallery, was not only embarrassing, it was shameful. It will remain, for me, one of the low points during my service in this Chamber.
Firefighters – whether they be employed, auxiliary, or volunteers – serve across the Northern Territory, so news of the debate on 28 August attracted interest, including from people in the Nhulunbuy region. The following week, it was on the front page of the Arafura Times where, at the lower half of the page, the headline read, ‘Tollner turns his back on Firies’ – a story, I add, not fed to the Arafura Times by me. That interest was sparked not only because of the appalling behaviour of the member for Fong Lim, but because our OIC at Nhulunbuy, Colin ‘Snogga’ Snowden is battling cancer. The member for Fannie Bay, in his contribution on 28 August, spoke of Snogga and his 17 years of dedicated service and his battle with testicular cancer and secondary cancer to the lungs and bones. He quoted Snogga in his contribution in the last sittings:
Not present in the gallery that night, on receipt of the news back in Nhulunbuy, Snogga was quoted in our local paper, as per the paper I have just shown members, as saying:
I first met Snogga in February 2009, not long after he arrived in Nhulunbuy. It was at a major fundraiser following the bushfires of 9 February 2009 which had ravaged parts of rural Victoria. The loss of 173 lives in those bushfires, not to mention hundreds of homes and businesses, might have been higher if it were not for firefighters. Here was this bloke on his day off, along with his colleagues, volunteering to help raise funds for those in Victoria. His family was not with him but back in Darwin. I remember telling him he needed to get his family across to Nhulunbuy because there was no better place to be in the Territory. He agreed. I am not sure of the exact time frame, but Snogga’s family did move to Nhulunbuy – his wife Alison or Ali, and their three terrific kids, Jai, Marle and Coby.
What I did not know was Snogga had been diagnosed with cancer. He is in remission, I am pleased to say, but as anyone knows when it comes to cancer, the shadow of cancer is ever present. For Snogga it is a lifetime of taking a regime of anti-cancer drugs as well as routine blood tests to check the cancer has not returned. It is all part and parcel of his life. It is also part and parcel of his family’s life. They live and breathe this as well.
I had a long conversation with Ali earlier today and I thank her for sharing more of their story with me, ahead of me wanting to speak in the Chamber tonight. I tried to phone Snogga at the station but he was off today. He was out fishing, good on him. The journey for the whole family has been a very tough one, and Ali spoke about moving into survival mode and how she looks back now and says, ‘I was drowning but did not know it’.
She spoke about the financial burden, about going backwards when there is simply no money coming in because every minute of sick leave, long service leave, and annual leave has been taken. She talked about medical costs and what a blessing it was that at least part of a series of four injections at a cost of $7000 each was covered.
However, on top of the financial burden is the worry of holding the family together, supporting, as she says, the person battling for their life. This scenario is true for any family battling cancer. However, the scenario for the Snowden family is that their dad and husband acquired this disease through his work, through exposure over the course of 17 years to hazardous, deadly, carcinogenic materials and substances – 17 years in a job which is all about serving and protecting Territorians whilst putting oneself at risk.
Snogga’s battle with cancer has taken its toll on him and his family. Between August 2010 and January 2011, Snogga relocated to Sydney for treatment, not for the first time, but this time his family did not come with him because of the sheer cost of living away from home. During this period he had more chemotherapy, more radiation treatment and stem cell transplant. To be apart for treatment for six months is a tough ask, especially for stem cell transplant. Ali travelled to Sydney in January 2011 to bring Snogga home, but was struck by the toll the treatment had taken on her husband, the side effects of the treatment, and the fact it took months for him to recover fitness.
In fact, keeping fit remains a constant challenge for him in a job which, by its nature, is physically demanding, and all the more so when on a regime of prescribed medication with all of its negative side effects. Those six months Snogga was away from home receiving treatment in Sydney is time which Ali said is ‘six months, including a Christmas, they will never get back’ – tough for all of them but, especially, for three school-aged kids.
I was with Ali Snowden on the Nhulunbuy Primary School’s annual Canberra excursion in September 2011, both of us accompanying our sons in Year 6. What I did not know, until she got a phone call while the group was visiting the federal parliament, was that Snogga was in Sydney visiting his specialists and the news was good. In fact, the news was fantastic because he got the all clear. He was in Sydney, she was in Canberra with 60 kids and half-a-dozen parents and teachers, and the other two children were home in Gove when this news came through. It was a poignant moment to observe Ali get this long-awaited, though perhaps dreaded, call and, with it, the relief and tears that come with good news.
Madam Speaker, our firies need more good news. They need to know this government supports this bill to allow them to be rightfully compensated for a terrible life-threatening workplace illness. I commend this bill to the House and urge the government to give it their support, though any hope of that seems to have disappeared. This bill is not about politics, it is about people.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, first, I will start on a positive note, and thank the firefighters who have come along tonight to support their colleagues who have cancer, and those who may develop cancer. Obviously, this is a very sensitive and personal subject and the firefighters have continually shown strength in the support they have given their colleagues.
I also thank my colleagues for their support today, and the member for Nelson for his in-principle support of this bill. They were passionate and compassionate in speaking to this bill today and well-researched and well-reasoned in what they said about why we are here debating what is, we believe, a bill that provides a sensible, responsible, and human approach to the medical fact that firefighters are more likely to develop certain types of cancer. It is a medical fact, so it is a reality we, as an employer, have to deal with: the firefighters who work for us to protect our community are more likely to develop certain types of cancer.
Knowing the evidence is there, what do you do as an employer? How do you responsibly deal with the fact they are people working for you who are doing good works for others? How are you there for them? How do you provide support? It was a straightforward request from firefighters. It was a pretty simple request.
Firefighters are more likely to develop certain types of cancer. This is supported by medical evidence. Can their coverage under the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act be simpler? It is a pretty straightforward request. We, obviously, agreed to that as a party. We asked how we can make it simpler.
The words around what we do are not simple. We reversed the onus as a rebuttal presumption. Essentially, what this bill says is we will support you up-front. If you develop cancer as a firefighter, we will support you up-front. Through your treatment, as you meet consultants, as you go through chemo or whatever you have to do as you fight that cancer, you do not have to, at that traumatic time for you and your family, argue that you developed that cancer on the job. We will support you from day one.
The government, or the employer, has the ability to challenge that if and as they need to, which is why one of the things the member for Fong Lim said was a complete furphy. We believe we should be there from day one looking after the firefighters. We think that was a very straightforward, simple request.
There is a tragic double standard in the Northern Territory. If you are a firefighter at the airport you are covered. If you are a firefighter who does not work at the airport you are not covered. The Northern Territory firefighters should be covered.
The Commonwealth passed its bill in late 2011. It did the research the member for Wanguri referred to. It had its committee report, it looked at all the medical evidence, and it passed its bill. Tasmania has now passed its bill. If we were to pass our bill today we would be the third jurisdiction to have coverage. We might not be leading the way, but would be at the forefront. We are one of the first jurisdictions doing this so we are, in many ways, not in sync, we are ahead of the game in dealing with this issue.
The member for Fong Lim was asking why we did not do this in the year 2000. The Commonwealth did this in late 2011. The Chief Minister at the time, Paul Henderson, made a personal pledge to firefighters before the last election that we would take this on and do this. It was not a political issue. We did not run our campaign on it, it was just something we said we should do. The former Chief Minister made that personal pledge, and I was very happy to take on the work behind that as the shadow minister in this current term of government. We made a personal commitment we would do this for firefighters because we believe it is a very straightforward, simple request.
The member for Fong Lim today gave two practical reasons for not supporting this bill: the fact there is a review occurring, and the breadth of the legislation. We know neither of those are the real factors behind the lack of support for this bill because last sittings, before he had read the legislation or met with firefighters, he said he would not support it. He said it was shameful and smacked of politics. He said he could signal the government would not be supporting this legislation because it was about petty politics.
The firefighters know this is not about politics. We have been meeting with the firefighters. It was a personal pledge from the former Labor Chief Minister. There was no federal election campaign around this. It was coincidental timing that this bill came forward last sittings, two weeks before a federal election. It was pure coincidence.
There was no federal election campaign around this; federal firefighters are covered. There was no federal election campaign around this in the Northern Territory; it was pure coincidence. The firefighters know there is no politics here. They had a personal pledge from the former Chief Minister before the last election, which we were happy to pick up in this term of government. There was no federal campaign around this. This is a sensible, responsible, and human approach to the medical fact that firefighters develop certain kinds of cancer more than other people in the workplace.
The first time politics was brought in to this debate was when the member for Fong Lim said this was all about politics. We would be very happy to work with the government on this legislation. We have brought a bill forward. If they had amendments, we would have talked about them. We just want this done. I believe we have handled this in a very mature way. We have not campaigned on this in a partisan way. We have worked with the firefighters and brought forward this bill.
Despite the Deputy Chief Minister’s accusations of politics, our speeches today have still gone to the facts. This is about the medical facts: firefighters develop certain kinds of cancer, unfortunately and tragically, more than other members of the workforce.
This is a very straightforward bill. A similar bill was passed in Canberra with bipartisan support. That is the parliament of Australia’s committee research into the bill. If you ever want to know anything about the medical facts behind this, I can say what the Commonwealth parliament has pulled together is a very quick, handy way to get across most of it. We have obviously gone to other places and worked with the union quite closely around a degree of research. However, if you are listening to this debate and want to know more, I can recommend the Commonwealth parliament of Australia website. There is a number of links to medical research.
However, for the purposes of this debate, following on from the member for Fong Lim’s accusations, the Commonwealth parliament did this with bipartisan support. The member for Wanguri quoted from a Liberal government. Tasmania has passed this. South Australia has two bills on this in their Chamber. Both the Labor Party and The Greens have introduced bills on this. People want to look after their firefighters. In more than half of our jurisdictions in Australia this bill has either been passed or introduced and people are looking at how they can look after firefighters. There is no politics, this is a very straightforward issue.
To go to some of the practical concerns the member for Fong Lim raised, and I appreciate that the Leader of the Opposition immediately rebutted them all, which was good. It goes to show the ridiculous chaff that the Deputy Chief Minister put up. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for what she did to immediately put him in his place.
He went to breadth of this bill. We discussed the inclusion of volunteer firefighters with firefighters. We believe if you fight a fire you should be protected. That is the belief of the firefighters, so we looked at how we can include them in this bill. One of the important things, which the Leader of the Opposition has already said, is this bill does not guarantee compensation; it is not like there is free cash in this bill.
To begin with, if you have cancer, that is terrible; you do not want cancer. If you, as a volunteer firefighter, have developed cancer, that is tragic and you can be protected under this bill. If you have only attended one fire, there is an opportunity for government to challenge whether you developed cancer on the job. However, if you have cancer you should get our support. We will be happy to work with you on whether you qualify for that support or not. However, the protection should be there.
Talking to firefighters, they made some very good points about this: as a firefighter, especially if you go back 25 years, data was not kept on how many fires you attended. If you were to put some arbitrary statistics in this bill on whether you have to attend 30, 40, 50 fires or whatever it happens to be to be eligible for this compensation, then there could be firefighters who fail purely because data was not kept at the time. Data was just not kept about which fire you went to, and when and where you attended.
More to the point, what if you attended no fires? In training to become a firefighter or to maintain your professional standards you are constantly going into situations involving fire and dealing with hazardous material. It is part of your ongoing job. Whether you are called out to a fire or a spill or not, as a firefighter you are constantly having to maintain your skillset and work with situations that, while contained, present dangers. Firefighters have a tough job whether they attend a fire or not.
Where do you draw the line? If you are going to put the arbitrary test in, where do you draw it? We said, ‘Let us not draw a line’. Under this bill, as an employer you have the ability to challenge. So, why put in the arbitrary test of how many fires you have to attend? It may only take one. It is unlikely, but you never know. That is part of the problem about being a firefighter. You do not know what will be burning when you turn up. You do not know what is in that grass fire. You do not know when you go to a warehouse to deal with a fire what has been stored in that warehouse. You do not know, but you must turn up. That is your job. You have to put that fire out. You have to clean up that spill. You have to be there. You have to do it, but you do not always know what is burning. It may be just one fire, so why put that arbitrary test in? We are very comfortable with the breadth of this legislation and we genuinely discussed it with firefighters and amongst ourselves as a Caucus.
The member for Fong Lim said, ‘We are doing a comprehensive review. While asking the questions we cannot pull firefighters out of that review and do them separately and, therefore, consider them separately in this bill’. Well, the Commonwealth did it! The Commonwealth amendment was specific to firefighters. Tasmania did it. The Tasmanian amendment was specific to firefighters. In Western Australia and South Australia it is specific to firefighters. The Country Liberal Party’s approach is, ‘We have a comprehensive review. We cannot pull it out. We cannot do it separately. Sorry about that.’ Everyone else is doing it separately. We do not believe that is a reason to not support this bill.
The Deputy Chief Minister said this review may end with a draft bill in June next year. It may include firefighters and it may cover firefighters who already have cancer: ‘may, may, may’. We do not think that is good enough when we know from medical fact that firefighters develop certain cancers at a higher rate than the rest of the workforce.
I put it to the CLP that if they believe in the principle of this legislation, are putting this into their review and are going to bring forward legislation, if they want to act in good faith and demonstrate that good faith to the firefighters, they could sit down with the Territory Insurance Office now and sort out the cases of the four firefighters who have cancer. They could do that as a sign of good faith now while they worked through that review and the legislation, rather than leaving them hanging until who knows what and when happens.
Let us talk about that retrospectivity issue, which is something the member for Nelson raised. We considered that and the Leader of the Opposition said, quite rightly, ‘This is a difficult issue. It is not something you put into a bill lightly. It is something you do not usually put into a bill at all’. However, we know four firefighters are currently fighting cancer. It seemed to us ridiculous, silly, churlish and not sensible to not include them. Why draw a line and say, ‘You are out’? We thought it was very reasonable to have retrospectivity and include those four firefighters who are fighting cancer: Jock McLeod, Colin ‘Snogga’ Snowden, Tommy Lawler and Danny McManus. Let us cover them and include them. There is no reason why the CLP cannot act in good faith now and cover them.
To go to some of the member for Nelson’s concerns, you cannot join the fire service with cancer and be covered; you have to develop cancer on the job. Under the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, if you have cancer, you are covered. What we are saying is you should be covered from day one. A bunch of ex-firefighters with cancer will not suddenly stampede to access the provisions of this bill. It is a much harder process to go through at a very traumatic time for them and their families, but they can eventually get cover under the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. This is saying they should get support from day one. Ex-firefighters or firefighters who previously dealt with cancer have an avenue through this legislation.
Retrospectivity is not an issue here. This is about supporting the four firefighters in their fight with cancer, because it is very tough while dealing with cancer to go through a traumatic time with your family to develop the evidence, the file, the case study you need to take to your insurance company to be covered. We are saying we need to take that work off those people at a time that is very difficult for them. Let us take that from them because we know from the medical facts they are more likely to develop that cancer on the job than not. Let us reverse the onus; let us make a rebuttable presumption and take that workload off them. We do not believe retrospectivity is an issue because it is not an undefined risk; it is a defined risk. It is four firefighters who have cancer and developed it while doing their job for us. It is a simple principle: should we cover them? Yes, let us do that.
I had that conversation with the member for Nelson. He was open to the conversation. As he just asked, ‘Government, can you find a way to cover those four people while you are doing this review and legislation? Let us not kick them out. Even when you bring your bill forward next year, if you do not have retrospectivity in it we should look at how we look after these four people.’ The member for Nelson’s heart is in the right spot and, hopefully, with him, Labor can work with the CLP to finally get this bill somewhere.
Unfortunately, we will not get this bill passed today, which is very disappointing. The reason the CLP does not want to support it, as they explained to us last sittings, is they believe it is political. That is a poor conclusion to reach. We have handled this in a sensible and responsible way and it is based on medical fact. This has not been a political process and that is an appalling reason. It is a disappointing reason to not support a bill which will provide support to people who have cancer.
It is regrettable that is the decision of the CLP government on whether they support this bill or not. They made that decision before they read the bill and met with firefighters, when normal convention would have you adjourn the bill and read it. To make that decision on the floor with the firefighters in the gallery was a very poor approach to a bill. There are centuries of convention that say you adjourn the bill and talk about it, you do not jump to your feet and make that statement. It was a very poor way to handle the bill. This is not about politics.
We will keep working on this issue. We have the review process we can work through, and we will see what comes forward from the government eventually. It might include firefighters, it might not. We will do our best to ensure it includes firefighters, the detail of the bill does not exclude people, and it covers you. That is our pledge now. We have done our best today, but it does not end today. We will continue to see what we can do for you.
The Assembly divided:
Motion negatived.
Continued from 27 March 2013.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, this debate goes back to March. I must admit the system for getting motions through on General Business Day can be a pretty long and drawn out. Luckily, we have brought it up today because it was raised in parliament during Question Time.
One of the things that disappoints me is the government’s attitude since I put this motion forward as an attempt to have bipartisan support to bring about changes in our Aboriginal town communities. They are called town camps, and to me it is a name that is really out of date. We have to try to move on from that. These places have good housing in many cases. They have some poor housing too. They have some social problems, but real people live on those communities. That is my problem with what is happening.
I asked the Chief Minister some questions today. I was alerted to issues by Bernie Valadian, who runs the Aboriginal Development Foundation which has leases over most of these sites - not Bagot, but One Mile, 15 Mile, Knuckey Lagoon and the Adelaide River communities. He rang me and said he was being asked by the Larrakia Nation, through LMPA as a mediator, to sign over the leases to Larrakia Nation.
I was surprised this was happening because we have a motion before parliament which the government knows about. The government has set up a task force, which I agree with in general but believe they left some things out. Here is an attempt to get some bipartisan support from parliament to ensure we move together to improve the lot of those people living in these communities.
After talking to Mr Valadian, the Chair of the Aboriginal Development Foundation, I received a letter which basically said two members of the public service would attend a meeting at Finlay’s on 30 September and would also be part of the discussion at 15 Mile and Knuckey Lagoon. The letter came from Larrakia Nation and the meeting was to be held at those communities with Larrakia Nation.
I have been told – and I thank the Minister for Community Services – the person, whose name I did not mention in parliament today, was not part of those discussions, and it was the senior policy advisor for the Indigenous MLAs who was dealing with this issue. What concerns me is if that is the case, there is still a government representative. I wanted the Chief Minister to answer the question about what the role of this person is in relation to this issue. The letter clearly advised me that at this meeting at Finlay’s, the public servant would relate the NT government’s position on Special Purposes Leases 454, 463 and 578, which I presume are the One Mile, Knuckey Lagoon and the 15 Mile. I am asking the government what is its intention?
There is no doubt there are issues. I covered those issues in my opening remarks to this motion. There are basically three groups involved in the operation of these communities: the Aboriginal Development Foundation, which owns the leases, Yilli Rreung Housing, which maintains the housing, and Larrakia Nation which does the maintenance work in the communities and provides some other services. I am not taking any sides from that point of view.
I have said time and time again — I will go right back to March, reading from the Parliamentary Record – at the beginning there should have been consultation with the residents of those communities. They are the people who live there. Many of them have lived there for many years. What appears to be happening is consultation between government and one of the parties, with the intention of getting another party to hand over its leases so the Larrakia Nation can have ownership of those communities. Guess who has not been involved in the discussions until – you might say – three-quarter time? When the government and Larrakia Nation are 10 goals in front, now the people have been invited to join in the discussions. Their chances of being heard or winning this debate are pretty remote.
I reiterate that the government should not be going down the path of taking sides in this. It should be facilitating a community-driven task force that looks at a range of issues, not just the issues the Minister for Community Services spoke of in a media release recently saying, ‘We have nothing to do with land leasing, we only deal with community services’.
I was hoping the government would not start to split up the task force. We heard the minister today say, ‘There is a task force being run by the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment’. The Minister for Community Services said, ‘We have a task force looking at community services’. Then, we find out there is another person who is negotiating with Larrakia Nation. Instead of a one-off task force dealing with the whole range of issues – even if the government decided to get an independent facilitator then we could have dealt with this issue in a holistic manner.
There are issues of governance which are not dealt with by any of these task forces: that is, giving people ownership of their communities. At present, we have some people who are ‘unelected’ leaders of those communities. My concern is that while people are unelected they do not always hold sufficient legitimacy for people to feel they are their true representatives.
A year-and-a-half or so ago I met a large number of people – I have their signatures here – who were concerned about violence on one of those communities. You could immediately see they felt they had no real say in that community. They had come together as a group, but what was lacking was an opportunity for those people to make some rules about how their community should be managed. That is an area this task force does not seem to have covered.
There is the issue of leases. I do not have a problem with the department of Lands if it wants to look at the technicalities of the leases, but I am not sure who the Department of Lands and Planning is talking to. What is the basis of their discussions? I do not know. I mentioned today that I was not allowed to be part of any of these discussions. The member for Namatjira, who used to be the minister, as an aside, said ‘You are a politician’. That is true, but all I ask is whether I could be an independent person able to look at what was going on without being part of those discussions.
I was just looking for the letter I wrote to the minister. I wanted to know why I could not be an independent observer at these meetings. These people are my constituents. If the government is doing deals here and there, that should be out in the open. It would not hurt for someone to be there to keep an eye on what is happening so we can see where the government is heading and to ensure those people who should be part of these discussions are included in them.
When you look at the list of people involved in the town camps – this is what came out when the government decided to have what they call a Darwin Town Camps Taskforce – the members were the Australian government Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA); Northern Territory government departments of Regional Development, Indigenous Advancement – that department has gone – Housing, Lands, Planning and Environment, Treasury and Finance; the Aboriginal Development Foundation; Bagot Community Incorporated; Gwalwa Daraniki Association; and Larrakia Nation. I understand Larrakia Nation pulled out.
Information in the media from the Minister for Community Services mentioned that Yilli Rreung was part of this discussion. In fact, they were put in as part of an industry reference group. I am told that industry reference group has not met, and Yilli Rreung has not been part of any of these discussions.
My concern is it seems we now have a multipronged attack on this process. I ask the government to seriously consider bringing these task forces together and involving the people who live there. Do not say to me their representatives are there. When you look at those names, I do not believe some of those people are representative of people at the 15 Mile and Knuckey Lagoon. You need to hear, if you are conducting a proper task force, about the issues involved in these communities. You need to hear from the people who live there.
Talking to the minister today, I know she would like to get some names. I will get those names for her. I feel, from working on Aboriginal communities in the past, that sometimes the people who are missed out are the most important people. Many times it is the women – not in all communities, but sometimes it is the women because the men speak up and people say, ‘Thank you very much’, and that is it. The women are the backbone of some of these communities; they give stability to many of these communities, and they need to be asked what is happening. I will explain why I say that.
When I heard there was a move by Larrakia Nation to ask the Aboriginal Development Foundation to hand over their leases, I spoke to some of the women in the morning because their kids were away. I spoke to about six or seven women and asked, ‘Would you like Larrakia Nation to take over this community?’ They said straight out ‘No’. It was as plain as day. I cannot guarantee that is a scientific cross-section of the community, but it was pretty straightforward. I did not need to have a debate about it.
What worries me is someone in government is going down this tangent, there is another department going off on another tangent, and another department is going off on another tangent.
I hoped this would be a positive motion that would bring people together to sort out their differences, to look at ways in which the people’s lives could be changed and improved and kids could get to school without some of the problems they have on those communities with some of the social issues, especially around drinking and violence. Some of the issues which could be looked at could be how ownership or leasing of houses could be improved; ownership of the land, and whether all the land and houses should be owned by one person; whether people have the right to buy their houses; whether local councils provide municipal services and whether roads become part of the local council, as has happened in Alice Springs.
Some of that debate has already occurred in Alice Springs over the years. We have not had that debate and we seem to have reached the point where we have no vision about these communities. No effort is made to look at how we can make things better. We have stagnated with the old, ‘she’ll be right, mate’ approach.
I am disappointed with the Chief Minister today, as he did not answer the question. The Chief Minister was asked a direct question, did not answer it and threw furphies such as, ‘You had the option as the kingmaker’. When they say that, I know they have no argument because it is a furphy. People know what my motives were about my position in the last government. When people throw that around I wonder what they are hiding.
I asked a simple question of the Chief Minister about intentions regarding special purpose leases on these communities. The Chief Minister did not answer and threw things flippantly back at me with a laugh and smile, instead of answering a serious question I asked on behalf of the women I was talking to the other day. To some extent, it reminds me of the joke about only so many people signing the petition the Opposition Leader brought forward. You can be smart by half sometimes, but the reality is this is a serious issue. If the Chief Minister has people out there doing things he should be able to at least give an honest answer in parliament regarding the government’s intentions.
I believe the government has something to hide, otherwise, they would have answered this question. They would not have distracted with silly things about what I did and did not do in my past life in this parliament. Unfortunately, the Chief Minister forgot to say I moved a similar motion with the previous government for the very same thing. That was developing, but a certain matter called an election came up and changed things.
I appreciate – and the minister for Lands and Planning is here – there are some difficulties in relation to the leasing of these areas. You cannot take someone’s lease away even if you think it would make a better proposition if someone else owned that lease. That lease is a legal document. The person or persons in a group that owns that lease are entitled, if necessary, unless they do it voluntarily, to fair compensation if the government wishes to take those leases back.
I am not denying that the matters we are talking about are not easy. All I was hoping is we could ensure when we had this discussion the people who will be affected by the decisions the government will have to make at some stage are being informed at the beginning: that we hear what they want. We do not go off to a particular group and say, ‘Sorry, fellows, but they are looking after the place now. I know you have lived here for 20 years. Too bad.’ I do not think we are treating people correctly if we do that.
I ask that if both the Minister for Lands and Planning and the Minister for Community Services are using a task force they give a commitment that people who live in those communities will be part of the task force. I know there will be some technical issues the government might want to look at, and I do not expect the technical side of matters to be dealt with. However, if they are starting to talk about ownership of these communities, then those people should be on them as well.
I will ask again, even though the previous minister laughed at me, if I could be an independent observer, where possible, at some of those meetings. It is not to be a sticky beak, it is because I have a genuine belief that these people need a chance to have a better option. When I asked whether I could be an observer, the then Minister for Regional Development laughed at me, and this is the answer I received:
Talk about being far away from reality! It is like ‘If we feel like it we will let you know’. That is pretty sad. My intention was to ensure that to some extent the task force was involving local residents and listening to what they had to say, and that matters were being discussed with people on the ground who knew what the issues were. There are many issues in those places. You will note the task force did not even include the councils of Palmerston, Litchfield or Darwin. If you are to have discussions about community services, you would think it would be basic to include councils in the group of people involved.
Lastly, I am disappointed that somehow, for some reason – the government could probably explain it to me one day – Yilli Rreung housing is not involved. I mentioned they are not on the task force; they are in some reference group. You would have thought the main body that maintains the houses, that has to collect the rent, regardless of whether you think it does a good job or not – I have heard various people say they do not like Yilli Rreung, Larrakia Nation, or the Aboriginal Development Foundation. Big deal! Yilli Rreung is a key part of these communities. One of the issues I have, of course, is if they want to kick someone out of a house they do not have a lease over, technically they can move them off the verandah, and that is it. They can stand on the dirt outside and go, ‘ah, ah ah’, and you cannot do anything about it. That is part of the reason I was hoping this task force would look at it.
If it is not looking at private ownership of these houses, then it will obviously look at a process of Aboriginal housing tenancies. To have that, you have to have a lease under the house as well as the house itself. At the moment, most of those houses, if they do not have a tenancy agreement, technically belong to the Aboriginal Development Foundation.
It is a complex issue. It is not something that will change overnight. I say to the government, I brought this motion before you in the belief you also believed these communities would get a fair hearing and be part of an approach by government that was not biased to any particular group. It could have facilitated discussions that should ensure the community came along with changes to that community which would make them better – better for those kids who have to sit up at night and listen to the fighting and the drinking, so those kids can get a better education. I do not think some of these places have improved, from a social point of view, much at all over the last umpteen number of years. I do not know how kids can ever get a decent education when it is very hard to get to sleep when you live in a place where there are such disruptions.
There are many good people in those communities. I meet the women from those places, and some of them are relatives of my wife and they know who I am. If you ask them what kind of community they want, they want a peaceful community. They want a place where their kids can grow up in safety. They do not want drunks, violence, or car accidents. They want to live like the rest of us.
The member for Johnston laughed the last time I mentioned this, but what a contrast you will see at the moment where Johnston is nearly within 100 m of the 15 Mile community. Talk about chalk and cheese! But that is the reality, and that is what has to change.
I will bring this up with the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment; he might be able to at least look at this for me. My understanding is – I might be wrong; I am not sure whether 15 Mile is on a sewerage system or septics – you have a ‘you beaut’ suburb built 100 m across the road. I am interested to know if any thought was given to hooking the 15 Mile up to the sewerage system. That would be a sign they are at least recognised as part of Palmerston, because they are within the Palmerston municipality.
Litchfield is a bit different; it mainly has septic tanks. However, the 15 Mile is a small suburb which is partly within the Palmerston municipality. I am interested to see whether the government has given some consideration to bringing them online. Perhaps the minister could take that up if he has a moment.
In summing up, I thank all the people who have made comments. I thank the opposition for its support in this debate. As the Leader of the Opposition said in her previous debate, she has been here a long time. I sometimes wonder whether I have not been here all my life. In some cases, I have been here longer than some people on the opposition have been alive. I have been around long enough to know these places have a long history.
Knuckey Lagoon was generally populated with people from Daly River. People I knew there have died. When we discuss these places, we also have to remember there is a history. Bernie Valadian can tell you about it better than I can. I also know it was a dry-out area for many people who came to town. Casey’s Store was up the road from Knuckey Lagoon, and Howard Springs pub was originally down the road from the 15 Mile. Belyuen people came across to the One Mile. Unfortunately, my nephew died about a year ago at the One Mile Dam.
These places have had a tragic connection for even people like me over many years. Things have to change, regardless of the history, because the next generation deserves better than the previous generation has dished out. I would like to give hope to all those people who are residents there who also want to change things. If we are to believe this government believes in open and transparent government and that we are open for business, then they need to ensure the people in these communities are part of that by being part of the discussions to make their life better, not by hiding the truth about what the government is doing, as the Chief Minister has done today. When he hides the truth, he insults the people of those communities.
Motion agreed to.
Continued from 28 November 2012.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, when we first spoke of this issue last year, the CLP government had hit Territorians hard with their ill-thought-out decision to raise power prices by 30%, water by 40%, and sewerage by 25%. Since then, we have seen chaos, with prices coming down slightly, but set to rise again soon.
These increases have hurt Territorians and this next round of increases will hurt Territorians even more. They are causing great stress to Territorians. Power and water are essential services. We live in a harsh climate. We need to use air conditioners and pool pumps. We need to water our lawn during the long Dry Season.
Previously, I shared stories in this Chamber and tonight I share more stories. Through the past year, many Territorians have raised with me how the power and water costs are making it impossible to live. Power bills going up by hundreds of dollars with no change in people’s usage is not fair. People are struggling, they live week to week. Good people – childcare workers, teachers – are struggling with these power increases and I do not know how they are going to face another rise.
The increase in my bill was huge, yet we had no more usage. There was chaos with those bills. We received about three bills in two weeks. The first bill I could not make sense of, the second bill told us we are in credit, so I thought ‘lovely’, and the third bill showed us we were back at the point where we owed hundreds of dollars. It was chaos. I vaguely remember hearing the Chief Minister whinge about his power bill on the radio one morning. He is the one who caused this pain to Territorians. He is the one who caused this chaos – his government. Services such as childcare centres had to increase their fees. For the former Treasurer to blame the increases that were passed on from these power and water costs on their quality framework was appalling.
In the last year, many sporting groups, sports people, and people whose children attend sports have told me the voucher scheme does not go anywhere to covering the costs of increases to sport activities. Sports clubs have had to pay extra for water and air conditioning, with their power bills going up.
You told Territorians a year ago that it was better for us to have a 30% hit than two 15% increases. I remember at the time the debate was around the increases not being necessary. The harshness of 30% on people’s power bills is massive. You made chaos of that. At the time, we were lectured that 30% was better for us than two 15% hits. Our bills came back down 25% and are set to rise again. They came down to 20% and are meant to go back up to 25%.
Public utilities are essential services. Territorians need to have these services. Governments are meant to support their citizens, not cause them so much pain. As I said at the time, and I reiterate tonight, if you are really conscious of what you are doing to Territorians you would not have reconsidered this decision. The pain it has caused our fellow Territorians is unfair. Good hard-working people who want to have pride in their garden or be able to live comfortably, watch the footy with the air conditioner on, now think twice. That is not fair. The government should not do that to people. You question what you could have done to lessen the impact. How could you say things like that? Your government increased power prices.
It has been nearly 12 months since we first spoke about this topic in the House, but it is a good time to reflect as we have had 12 months to talk about it. We have had increases in place for nearly 10 months and we are about to head into the next increase phase which will bring the issue up again. We are heading towards Christmas. The weather has warmed up in the last few weeks in the Top End, as it has in Central Australia. This will come straight back to Territorians.
You commented at the time that you hoped people would forget, which really showed how out of touch you are. Territorians have not forgotten; they will not forget. They are reminded every time they use an appliance or an air conditioner, or try to cut their power usage, that the government increased their power costs by 30%, water by 40%, and sewerage by 25%.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I spoke at the time about how appalling this decision was. I still have that strong view. On behalf of the constituents I represent, I reiterate in the House that view has not changed at all and people have not forgotten. They have not become used to this awful mean-spirited increase in utilities this CLP government put on people.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, this has been held over for some sittings. I thank the member for Nightcliff for continuing her remarks in closing off this debate. It has been almost a year. In January we will see that first real Wet Season build-up and Wet Season experience where households already struggling financially with the cost of living feel the true and full impact of the price hikes brought about by the decision made first by the Mills government, then held onto by the Giles government in hiking up power, water and sewerage tariffs so dramatically.
I believe the current Chief Minister thought Territorians would say, ‘Thank you, we are saved’ when he dropped the power price tariff from a 30% increase to a 20%, albeit then loading that 10% back on from 1 January 2014. Territorians saw it as a very insignificant mercy. When they get their bills – on average, households are getting bill increases around the $1500 mark for the year – it is the cruellest blow of all. People are genuinely struggling.
We have raised issues of how this plays out and whether or not there is any consideration or fairness in how the government could go about it. For example, Power and Water has instituted a regime where you can only have one agreement to pay negotiation for a quarter. We have families struggling with their bills, they strike an agreement to pay, but are struck out once. They face utilities being cut off if they cannot meet their bills in the other quarters that roll through the year.
I predicted people would really struggle with that first bill. That came to fruition in the approaches I have had from people from all backgrounds, all walks of life, in all demographic areas of the Northern Territory. They have struggled in the major city, in our regional towns and, as we have heard, out bush where those all-important power cards were being chewed through at twice the normal rate. What we have seen is the government hell-bent on continuing to ignore the pain inflicted on the households and families, and very dismissive and arrogant in ignoring what the small businesses, which are really suffering under the burden of these increases in power prices, are saying.
They were highly dismissive of those corner supermarkets and what they had to say: people who rely on heavy refrigeration and cooling just to run their businesses. The arrogant dismissal of their concerns was appalling, to say the least. What we have is people not being able to pass on to the consumer the full cost of those prices in some of the industries at the front line which are doing it pretty tough through a fairly sluggish period. We have just started to see some pick-up in retail, and that is a good sign.
As I have been saying, the government does not want to hear it because if it is not to their liking they have cloth ears. However, we have a two-speed economy. We have the haves and the have-nots. The haves are those businesses which are doing exceptionally well off the back of the big dollars coming to this town courtesy of the private sector investment flowing out of that major project of Ichthys, courtesy of INPEX and Total’s investment in that project. We have some opportunities still flowing through the capital spend of government off the back of decisions Labor made on the Marine Supply Base.
Those things are great and they will underpin GSP. They are underpinning business confidence going forward, but they do not provide the bread and butter to the small- and medium-size enterprises which are on struggle street, which have downsized and reduced their staff and have gone on to reduce hours. These are some pretty decent sized medium firms I am referring to. It might be that it suits the government to think, ‘That is just the Leader of the Opposition saying what she feels like saying’ and ‘We do not believe her’ but, genuinely, I am constantly engaged with all the key industry organisations to keep my finger on the pulse of what is happening across the small- and medium-size enterprises. If you are not hearing the story of the twin-speed economy in the Territory and of the have and have-nots, I have to question why. Is it because they have just given up trying to explain it to you?
The reality is the power, sewerage, and water price hikes which have been embedded into the tariffs by the CLP – without a shred of evidence, by the way. There were no authoritative reports done on this. There was no regularity expert trotted out to say, ‘Here we are, here is the information where we have genuinely tested what percentage it should be.’ It was at a whim of the then Treasurer, followed up, and backed up.
You hear incredibly disparaging comments made about Power and Water by the current Treasurer, referring to the corporation as ‘fat, bloated and terrible’. There were disparaging comments on the work of the board, which was ultimately sacked at another whim of the current Treasurer. It was a very august board, I have to say, of both industry experts and highly-respected local businessmen with high levels of expertise. When they summarily and arbitrarily sacked that board, they did so without a shred of evidence as to why they should. That board had instituted a regime of efficiencies through Power and Water as an organisation and corporation when I was shareholding Treasurer, and it was yielding about $65m per year in savings. That is no small bickies in savings from one corporation. They were tracking on a pathway then of recasting and reconsidering the capital program which, of course, is where the bulk of the debt came from.
Again, it does not suit the government to have a genuine, factual debate on the debt of Power and Water. It does not suit the government to recognise that successive governments for two decades did not invest in the repairs and maintenance or the capital requirements of power, water and sewerage in the Northern Territory. Whether it was Power and Water or Power and Water Corporation, the genuine level investment required to maintain the networks, the generations, the water and the sewerage did not occur. R&M was running at very low levels. In fact, for a period of about three successive financial years under the previous CLP government, they took more in dividends from Power and Water than they put into repairs and maintenance. Of course, we had the consequences of, essentially, two decades of neglect, which caused the catastrophic failure of the Casuarina Zone Substation, with about 17 000 consumers offline. There was no ignoring that. No government worth its salt could ignore such a catastrophic failure.
We brought in an expert to do a thorough review. Merv Davies did it. The review laid out a program of repairs and maintenance investment, and capital investment for Power and Water which was followed carefully and endorsed by an august board of experts. All of that was done. At the time, in 2009, I shouldered a very tough burden of being the first Treasurer in the best part of two decades to increase tariffs above a CPI pathway. I did that for the financial – not commercial – sustainability pathway from Power and Water. Again, let us not let facts get in the way of the CLP furphy that Labor did nothing. Listening to them, Labor did nothing.
They opened the new Snell Street Zone Substation. The rank hypocrisy we saw through that period of the power tariff increases was unbelievable. Then they lauded the new zone substation opening, the Larrakeyah outfall closure, looked at the Weddell Power Station and lauded the Archer Zone Substation. There was media release after media release, media footage after media footage. Here was a CLP Treasurer saying, ‘Here is this great work we have done at Power and Water’, at the same time saying. ‘We have to carry this debt’. I do not know what they think it takes to build zone substations and entire power stations such as Weddell and replace and repair gen sets at Channel Island. I do not think there is a fairy with a magic wand it will wave and do all of that work without it coming at a cost.
The cost was not borne out in an expert report. There was no evidence when the CLP chose to increase tariffs. They did it on the back of some pretty nasty and misleading rhetoric around the state of Power and Water as a corporation. There are some very strong experts around, who, of course, are privy to what occurs at Power and Water. The board was sacked because it was deemed by the current Treasurer to be in the way of his plans. It has panned out. We have been saying for a while now in opposition that the government was moving to privatisation and moving to split up Power and Water into different entities. You could not get a straight line from the government on that one until – voil – on a Friday afternoon out went a media release – no evidence, no report, no authoritative terms on operational requirements and financial efficiencies. No, just a media release saying, ‘By the way, we are going to create some additional government-owned corporations and will split up Power and Water to create retail and generation’.
Again, the CLP government is very careful with its words, very careful to rule out privatisation. It will not rule out partial sale, selling Weddell Power Station, indeed, selling some aspects of the network, or selling the excess supply of gas Power and Water owns out of the Blacktip field. Then, flying in the face of logic, the Treasurer continued to bang the drum and say, ‘It is in dire financial circumstances. It is a disaster and is nearly bankrupt’. Then Power and Water purchased additional gas.
The Treasurer used these ridiculous descriptions of Power and Water such as ‘bankrupt and in financial dire straits’ as an excuse to hike up the power bills for consumers: some $1500-plus, to $2000 a year extra on their power bills. Thank you CLP, for breaking that all-important, ‘We will not increase the cost of living, we will reduce it’, election commitment. Put that aside, in they came, not with a media release issued, but media advice coming through channels that Power and Water had purchased 15 PJ of gas over 10 years per annum at Magellan. How much is that worth?
What a contrast, because when the Blacktip gas supply was purchased, the people were advised of the cost to the taxpayer. People were advised of the cost to the taxpayers when different phases of Blacktip rolled through when there was some failure and additional diesel had to be bought and burnt to ensure the sustainability of the power supply. At every turn, Labor in government was completely open and accountable on the cost to the taxpayer. Yet, here we have a very clear, stark contrast where the government – the shareholding minister, the Treasurer – would have to approve the purchase of this 15 PJ per annum of gas by Power and Water.
The Chief Minister would be in the room on the discussions on that. At the very least, you would expect it would have to go through Cabinet for sign off. Yet, they pretend it has nothing to do with them, it is just what Power and Water is over there doing, ‘Do not worry about that, we are not going to tell you how much it costs the taxpayer’.
What an extraordinary situation. They hike up everyone’s tariffs – consumers, the small businesses – to say, ‘You have to start paying off our debt’, then they decide to take Power and Water further into debt by purchasing gas. But, they will not tell you how much. Then they decided to split up Power and Water and create a retail government-owned corporation, a generation government-owned corporation, with the rest in the third, and say that will drive efficiencies. Yet, they will all have their own boards and corporate structures. How on earth is that efficient? It has not been proved to be efficient anywhere else in Australia when it comes to running a utility, particularly in the environment in which we exist in the Territory where we have a very small population and a requirement to provide those utility services over a vast geographical landscape.
It is little wonder that the Electrical Trades Union, whose members work for Power and Water, is running a campaign called ‘not for sale’. I encourage people listening to go to the notforsale.org.au/northern-territory site and read this. It has some really good information and facts around the importance of Power and Water in keeping the lights on. Power and Water has 1000 employees, including some 80 apprentices. It is our tax dollars that have gone into building and maintaining the infrastructure of Power and Water. It talks about us as Territorians owning the power, water and sewerage assets that provide these essential services to all Territorians.
On the question of essential services, did the penny ever drop in the minds of government that essential service means you cannot do without it? You need your hospital and schools, they are essential to your life. Government provides essential services. When you think you can run essential services of power, water, and sewerage in a jurisdiction of the vast geographic landscape of the Territory with a small population and small numbers of businesses at a commercial profit, the thing that gives and hurts, which is hurting Territorians now is the power price hikes. Tariff increases hurt Territorians. You are pricing Territorians out of the Territory when they get their bills.
I will never forget that Channel 9 interview the then Treasurer, the member for Araluen, provided when Jonathon Upton looked at her after she announced the tariff increases and said ‘But aren’t you worried that people will vote against you at the next election over this?’, and she smiled and she said ‘Oh no, they will forget after two years, that is what we are counting on’.
What an extraordinary admission: that this is about a quick political cash grab and fix, and do not worry, everyone will forget about it when they go to vote at the next election. We saw the vote result in the Wanguri by-election, where 70% voted against this CLP government. In the Solomon election result there was a very strong seething anger still, even though it was not a federal issue but a Territory issue. There was a strong, seething undercurrent of anger towards the CLP over the power price hikes. People walking into polling booths saw the power price hike posters. They were there for a reason. We were hearing loud and clear from our community about how angry they are at how much they are being priced out of their homes and the community they love by these cruel tariff increases by the CLP – implemented without evidence or an informative, qualitative report that goes to why they are doing it.
In the ‘not for sale’, it talks about what has occurred in states and territories around Australia - South Australia, Queensland - where you have privatisation and public ownership. It talks about the extent of the assets Power and Water own. I encourage people to read it because it is around the facts. The facts go hand in hand with common sense: when it is managed properly it is cheaper; it is about service before profit; it is safer for workers and the public if controlled by the government we elect; and it provides job and training for regional communities.
These fundamental aspects of Power and Water have been torn up as the CLP goes along. The splitting up of Power and Water is the latest step towards privatisation. I have deep, real and genuine concerns about where tariffs will head with the CLP. They have already gone up 20% for power and 30% for water and sewerage. We know it will go up another 10% on 1 January. We know the Treasurer did not want to remove 10% when the carbon tax goes, but he was shamed into it on a backflip the day after the federal election when the federal member for Solomon, Natasha Griggs, got her hooks into him.
Beware Territorians! The issue of power price hikes is only part done by this government. They are hurting us every day with the tariff increases. Now there are splitting up Power and Water, and I have deep and genuine concerns about what that means for price hikes going forward, because this government does not seem to give a damn about what they inflict on Territorians.
The Assembly divided:
Continued from 5 December 2012.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, this is one of those debates where, unfortunately with the way the Notice Paper works, if they come up for debate and run out of time, they end up down the bottom of the pile. Maybe that is something we need to look at to see whether that can be improved.
This motion is very important. In opposition, the member for Fong Lim had some words of support for the development of this area. I welcome the member for Fannie Bay bringing this matter to parliament. I do not think this issue has gone away. For those who may be wondering what I am talking about, this motion is about protecting Ludmilla Creek, the mangroves around Ludmilla Creek, and part of the foreshore of East Point.
As people might know, there were some plans some time ago by developers to turn Ludmilla Creek into a marina. Of course, there are marinas and there are marinas. The standard marina is a bit like the Duck Pond where you want to have a safe haven for boats. However, these marinas are not simply that. You could build a marina anywhere without destroying all the mangroves. This type of marina is a housing estate, and is similar to the housing estates you see in some parts of the Gold Coast.
I always laugh a bit because they are always promoted as ‘great lifestyle, a fantastic place to live, a marina with access to a canal and out to sea’. Of course, the only people who benefit from those are the people who live on the edge. Everyone else could have lived in Whoop-Whoop; they would not even know they lived on a canal. You only have a limited number of people who can live on the water. The rest are only part of a suburb that might have a fancy name like Ludmilla Haven or Blue Ludmilla, or Ludmilla Lagoon. I can see it now. Yes, it was Baygon Haven, now it is just Bayview. You can do many things with names and selling points. You can convince people this is the Northern Territory open for business. However, do we have to be that blinded by development we do not look to the future of our beautiful harbour?
One of the things I have always said is, ‘Why can we not be a little unique?’ We have plenty of land to develop. If someone wants a canal estate, run your canal through to higher ground and dig it out. You will destroy about 100 m of mangroves and that is it. If people like that kind of lifestyle, that is well and good. A development requires a large number of mangroves to be destroyed. You have to remember mangroves are unique, not only because they live on a difficult part of our planet, somewhere between high tide and low tide in a salt water/fresh water environment – they are not found everywhere. I came from Victoria a long time ago and my mother comes from an island called French Island. Many prisoners used to go there because it was penal colony once. There is only one species of mangrove around French Island, in Western Port Bay.
In the Northern Territory we have far more species of mangroves. It is something we should be proud of because (1) of the biodiversity and (2) that close to where we live, we have a breeding ground for so much wildlife, especially the aquatic life that many people love about the Darwin Harbour. Fish do not drink water and get fat; they live off all sorts of funny little creatures. Many of those funny little creatures live amongst the mangroves. What is so nice about Darwin is you can go up to East Point and to the Nightcliff jetty, and you can throw a line in ...
Mr Vatskalis: That is nothing.
Mr WOOD: What do you mean nothing?
Mr Vatskalis: I have done that. Nightcliff jetty is not a good place to fish.
Mr WOOD: Okay. I am talking in very general terms, member for Casuarina. We will put in a Palmerston jetty. I do not know if the member for Brennan has time these days to fish down there. The Palmerston jetty is a pretty good jetty I must admit, and it is very popular.
We would not be able to go out into our harbour and catch fish if we did not have such a food supply that you get from the mangroves, along, of course, with all the other animals that rely on the mangroves. It is not only fish, but long bums, mangrove worms, crabs, and birds which live there …
Mr Kurrupuwu: Mangrove worms.
Mr WOOD: I have not eaten a mangrove worm, member for Arafura. I have never been brave enough. It reminds me of a piece of intestine full of soil. One day I will acquire the taste. Long bums I have had. They taste like gristle but at least they are a lot nicer than mangrove worms ...
Mr Kurrupuwu: Vitamin C.
Mr WOOD: The member for Arafura would know the importance of mangroves too. Right where Nguiu is - I will remember the other name one day - there are plenty of mangroves that are not only habitat, but they protect the coast. People forget that. If we get a cyclone, those mangroves give us some protection as well. They actually bind that part of the coastline together.
Ludmilla Creek is part of our mangroves. Any move to turn that into a marina is just thinking of the 1950s and 1960s. We have moved on from that. We are not short of land in the Northern Territory. The population of the greater Darwin area is approximately 125 000. The area mass in the Northern Territory is one-sixth of Australia. We are so short of land we have to bulldoze the mangroves away and put houses on top of piles of gravel and mud? It just seems an incredible effort and an incredible waste of our environment.
I also raised this issue because I do not believe the new government has given up the idea of damming the Elizabeth River. I was talking to someone the other day – I will not say who it was, but he is involved in real estate. They raised the issue of a small weir on the Elizabeth River. Do we not love the small weir? We are not short of land. Weddell has lots of land. If you want to build a lake, dig a big hole in the high ground and put salt water in it. At least you will not destroy the mangroves.
Sometimes people, especially in the political side of government, need to do some research themselves. Look up some of the websites on the importance of estuaries. There has been a lot of work done, I think through the Griffith Institute of Technology. There is a group, CRC, that studies the importance of estuaries. Anyone who would block the mouth of an estuary has to have rocks in their head.
It is being done to get rid of the sandflies and have a nice recreational lake. However, you destroy the river. In the case of Elizabeth River, what happens in the Wet Season? All the little creatures go upstream as prawns and little things breed up there. If you have ever done Waterwatch you will find some of these things in creeks, even Mitchell Creek. I have done Waterwatch testing in Mitchell Creek and there are many little prawns. Come the Wet Season they are all washed downstream. Also, barramundi go upstream. You can catch barramundi further up Elizabeth River. You can catch barramundi on Thorak Road or McMillans Road where Knuckey Lagoon feeds out. You can catch barramundi on the street next to me, Barker Road, on the culvert. All these creeks and estuaries that feed into our harbour are important for the lifeblood of the harbour.
If we start to muddle with it because someone sees dollars signs, and that is how it is done somewhere else and it is nice, then we are devoid of a real appreciation of what is so special about Darwin. At present, except perhaps for Sadgroves Creek, we have not destroyed too much of the mangrove population of Darwin Harbour. Yes, we lose a bit here and there. We have lost some with the East Arm port, we lost some with ConocoPhillips, but only a limited amount, and we will lose some with the development of INPEX. However, you will notice those big companies understand the importance and have tried to build their developments around the mangroves rather than destroy them.
One of the issues the government will have to consider is that they are talking about a port at Glyde Point. The previous government took Glyde Point out of the equation. Much as I do not believe they made the right decision, they said they were conserving that area. They were not because they did not turn it into a conservation zone; they turned it into an open recreation zone. The issue of concern to people about the development of Glyde Point is when you look on the original plans the CLP put out, a large expanse of mangroves was destroyed. If we are to look at that area again we have to do it with a bit more nous, a bit more intelligence, and a bit more respect for those parts of the environment we treasure and which are important to the ecology of the area. We have to look outside the square and not do everything with a bulldozer, but in recognition that there are parts to be retained. The member for Fannie Bay will have a few words to say.
I support this motion. One of the problems you have with a new population coming into Darwin all the time is they do not understand the importance of the mangroves. It would be good for the government to promote the benefits of having mangroves in our harbour, and why they are important.
We had a protest meeting at the university some years ago when the government was going to dam Elizabeth River. I cannot think of the lady’s name, she worked for the Darwin museum. She was a professor who had studied Darwin Harbour for years and years. From her knowledge, I was able to get a list of all the aquatic species they knew existed in Darwin Harbour at the time. We were able to cover all the walls of the theatre at the university with pictures of every aquatic species that frequented Darwin Harbour to show people how important the harbour is.
It is not about just looking at a little thing and saying, ‘Oh, that is Ludmilla Creek’, it is about looking at the bigger picture. It is about asking, ‘What do you think is special about Darwin?’ To me, if we can keep our natural environment intact as much as possible, live with it not in it, as some people want to, then we will have a city we can be proud of. We might have tall buildings and rows of flats. I hope the minister’s ideas about getting a bit of greenery in there come to fruition, but one thing we can retain is the natural environment and that will make our harbour beautiful. Our future generations, if we retain that natural environment, will thank us very much for doing that.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this motion.
Mr CHANDLER (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Mr Deputy Speaker, there are a few things about which I probably agree with the member for Nelson. It is important to acknowledge how important mangroves are in our harbour.
Only a few weeks ago I spent the evening on a boat with a number of environmentalists, professors and others from CDU Environment Centre. Margaret Clinch, Stuart Blanch, and a number of other people were there. We went into Ludmilla Creek. In fact, we left the port and cruised around to the sewage outfall to see the effluent bubbling into the ocean. I am sure we were there longer than we needed to be, but it gave an impression of what goes into our harbour. We spent several hours cruising around the Ludmilla Creek area, seeing the bird life and, from the perspective of the people on the boat, how important Ludmilla Creek was to them and to others. It is vitally important we do what we can to preserve our environment.
I looked behind me when I was on the boat to ensure there was not a plank, because I told them that I could be out there the following night in a boat full of developers who would have a completely different perspective of that area. There was no plank, and they understood where I was coming from.
I thank the member for Fannie Bay for raising this issue. Darwin’s strategic importance on the north coast of the Australian continent means it has a dominant position with expanding potential and real opportunity to lead economic growth in the region. Modern-day demands have led to the development of East Arm Wharf and, of course, the Marine Supply Base, and the need to consider the strategic position of a second port for industrial purposes. In addition, the harbour is highly valued by Territorians for an outstanding range of recreational activities.
Although many assume there is a sizeable scope for urban expansion, this is incorrect. Compared to other major seaboard cities in Australia, Darwin’s available land footprint for urban and regional development is severely limited. An important planning ingredient is to accurately audit what you have to work with. A proper framework is required to demonstrate where industry is based and where new adjacent residential areas will be located where people will work, live and enjoy their recreation.
In 2006, former Chief Minister and former member for Fannie Bay, Hon Clare Martin, released a policy entitled Creating Darwin’s Future – a Tropical Harbour City. You would remember it, member for Fannie Bay, you were working as an advisor at the time. Let me read the headlines under the key themes. They were: Recreation and Lifestyle; Tourism and Heritage; and Development Catering for Rapid Residential Growth.
You might ask what has changed since 2006. The need for housing has changed; it has become far more urgent. The former Labor government did not keep up with new housing choices to match industrial expansion.
The member for Fannie Bay’s motion is completely erroneous. He claims these special places are at risk under the CLP’s new Planning Commission. They are not at risk. No country, state, or territory can afford to create a planning vacuum.
Let me provide a definition of a vacuum. It means a space absolutely devoid of matter. The member for Fannie Bay, sadly, displays this situation himself as far as planning credentials are concerned. He noted in the House on 18 February 2010 the following:
That was nearly three years ago and Labor did nothing. Labor did not grasp that there had to be a cultural and social change to accommodate an increasing population. Instead, there was a political vacuum.
On May 17 2011, approval of the Ichthys project was given. The former Labor government’s media release reads as follows:
Similarly, before work commenced on the new Marine Supply Base close to Hudson Creek on reclaimed land, backfilled bund ponds and harbour foreshore, extensive environmental studies were undertaken. This was all under the former government. A detailed environmental management plan stipulated what further monitoring had to be done during the project.
The following statement was noted within the East Arm Wharf expansion project. In the EIS it said:
In the case of the approvals stamped by the former Labor government, they must have decided the decisions were worth making in the following instances: in order to develop ConocoPhillips at Wickham Point, INPEX at Blaydin Point; and the Marine Supply Base opposite Blaydin Point, together with – from the government’s Wishart Business Precinct Master Plan – access corridors through the adjoining mangroves to harbour waters to encourage the development of port, barge, and oil- and gas-related industries – not forgetting the mangroves that were removed for the East Arm boat ramp, the pontoon and, of course, the parking bays.
My government will be highly diligent in its duty of care of Darwin Harbour. No government can turn its back on projects around the harbour, whether they are residential, recreational, commercial, or industrial. They all have to come together to enhance our lifestyle and bring prosperity to the Northern Territory. Initiatives have to be put in place that utilise science and technology to keep pace with industrial and economic change. There has to be an ongoing discussion and awareness of community aspirations and expectations. These include aspirations and expectations of the many Territorians who want coastal walks and recreation areas, cycle paths, running tracks, a safe berth for their boat, and housing choices including waterfront homes or apartments with a marine view.
An example pre-Cyclone Tracy was the plan to transform Rapid Creek from Trower Road to the mouth of the creek into a lake, hence the name Lakeside Drive in Alawa. Urban opportunities were planned, a rowing course mapped out for the then Darwin Community College, and the entire area was chained and mangroves cleared. Very few remember it now, as the lake did not proceed. However, despite the clearance, plus damage from the 1974 cyclone, the 1979 Dwyer report entitled Rapid Creek Recreational Project noted:
I draw the attention of the House to the comments made by the member for Fannie Bay on 17 September 2008:
There are imperatives to be considered for our harbour that must not be dealt with on an ad hoc or shout-the-loudest basis. Land use around Darwin Harbour must take into account risks including storm surge mitigation, insect breeding, drainage, and regeneration of mangroves. Research comes online all the time and should be taken into account, not shelved and ignored. Of particular concern are the events we witnessed in last October’s graphic coverage from New York and the eastern seaboard of the United States and the dreaded impact of the storm surge due to Hurricane Sandy.
On 5 November 2012, Justin McGar writing for an online publication DesignBUILD Source stated:
Our cyclone seasons hold the same potential for disaster. Everybody remembers Cyclone Tracy, but the 1937 cyclone also packed a significant punch. The Review of NT Cyclone Risks, Appendix F, stated that:
The review also noted that harbour seas were described as phenomenal.
Let me share this account from the Big Blow Up North: a history of tropical cyclones in Australia’s Northern Territory by Kevin Murphy:
This is now part of Lake Alexander.
Coastal erosion issues continue and must be addressed. I draw members’ attention to the report entitled Coastal Erosion Issues in the East Point and Nightcliff Areas of Darwin. This was prepared for the Darwin City Council by the Centre for Regional Climate Change studies. An excerpt reads as follows:
The report also noted:
The reports long-term recommendations noted:
The report went on to outline one of the major options:
My department has an important role to play in the consideration of all of these issues, as does the Planning Commission. The issues will not be ignored in the hope that a storm catastrophe never eventuates. The Top End is not immune and must plan ahead. Continuing a mantra of negativity and of filing challenges in the too-hard basket does not make those challenges go away, as the former Labor government is surely noting to its cost.
The science of tropical cyclone knowledge and behaviour continues to evolve. The member for Fannie Bay is nave to simply demand that parliament must safeguard the ecology – important mangrove areas of Coconut Grove. Mangroves are important, but safeguarding residents should be on an equal footing, if not higher. There has been a sizeable body of work undertaken on coastal zones, marine environment, weather, mangrove issues, and on mangrove coasts and wetlands. Every year, further science adds to our knowledge base.
The paper published by the Australian National University North Australia Research Unit entitled Coastal Management in Northern Australia summarised within its introduction, as follows:
That is why, as a responsible government, we have to plan, research, and reassess all aspects of living and working around Darwin Harbour. We need to co-exist and ensure that when we decide where people live, we do it properly, and when we decide where to conserve, we do it properly.
Whilst in opposition, we saw that proper planning was a critical element of good government, but we are sadly lacking in the Northern Territory. It was why the Country Liberals committed to such effort in the 2010 discussion paper, Planning for Greater Darwin, a Dynamic Harbour City, which stated the following:
If I turn the clock back to the initial days of the previous administration, I find that on 20 August 2002, the Labor government tabled the 2002-03 Northern Territory Budget Papers that included the following announcement:
Five years later, Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee minutes from 2008 noted:
A year ago, their newsletter, dated December 2011 stated:
Mr Deputy Speaker, the former Labor government did nothing. There is no doubt in my mind that the newly-established Planning Commission is a vital component for the long-term strategic planning of the Northern Territory, and that strategic planning has to define our template for the future in every regard. Far from the special places of East Point, Coconut Grove or Ludmilla Creek being at risk from the Planning Commission, the current opposition has left us with a legacy of failure to plan at all, yet another issue our government will resolve.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the members for Nelson and Nightcliff for their support in this motion. The member for Fong Lim confirmed where we have always known he stands on these issues. It was quite interesting to hear the minister speak, and I might have to go back and re-read some of what he said. There was quite a lot of detail in there. However, as carefully as I listened, I was not sure after he finished speaking whether East Point is actually safe or not.
As an opposition, and as a government, the issue on which we have always stood is that great cities have special places. Darwin is a great city; we want Darwin to remain a great city. East Point is a special place, and we believe it should be safeguarded.
There are many reasons why people love living in Darwin, but East Point is our special place. Other cities around the world have their individual sites which make them stand out. I believe, for Darwin, East Point is what makes us special.
At the end of all that, I take the minister on his word that the Planning Commission will be looking after this area. I believe we still need to pay close attention to what happens, because there were a few caveats all the way through that speech. We believe East Point is a special place for many reasons – heritage, environmental and lifestyle – and it should be protected and preserved.
The minister made a comment on process. It is important to establish that the first step in building something is having the permission of the landowner. If someone wants to build something at my house, they need my permission. Before you rezone, or consent to development, you need the permission of the landowner.
We followed proper process. We did not give permission for construction of anything on East Point. As a government, we went through the Cabinet process and very clearly said, ‘This is where we stand. East Point is a special place’. We gave a bunch of other reasons as well as to why we wanted to protect East Point. The number one reason for me was that it is a special place. Proper process is permission of the landowner first, so that is what we did. Did we as a landowner, at that time as government, give permission for something to be built at East Point? No, we did not.
Where does the current government stand? We do not know. They are saying, ‘We have a Planning Commission and we will consider all options’. As a government we made it clear, and as an opposition we are making it very clear we believe East Point is a special place.
I was not quite sure where the minister was going with his partial slap there. I did not quite understand it. He talked about my previous comments that we need housing in Darwin and to ensure we do not price people out of the city. I completely agree with that. Within my ambit as local member for Fannie Bay, and working closely with the Treasurer, the Planning minister and the Housing minister at the time, I championed the mixture of affordable public and private housing at Wirrina. We increased the density and put more units on that site and created the mix. It was the first time we had done that in the Territory.
It was good to have the minister opening it. It was one of those things when governments change hands. The minister, in his previous role as minister for Housing, opened that site and made some very good remarks about how this was a model with affordable housing and a way of not pricing workers out of our inner city. I would love that to be a bipartisan approach. We should be trying to find ways on government land, because it is easier on public housing sites, where we can provide affordable mixed housing to ensure people are not priced out of the market.
In some respects, it was a trial at Parap. I am happy with what has happened there. It has been up and running for a while now and people living there love it. That was my approach in my limited ambit as member for Fannie Bay, working with what was a great government at the time. I am looking at a couple of the ministers who were there right next to me, the former Deputy Chief Minister and Treasurer and the former Planning minister. That was one of the approaches we took, a trial to find a way of dealing with the pressures that could come on people living in the inner city.
We believe you have to go through proper planning processes. We believe you have to think about how you prioritise housing and not price people out of the market. The minister, in his previous role as Housing minister, had favourable comments on that. I am interested to see what he does as a Planning minister in that area.
This motion is about saying great cities have special places. Darwin is a great city, we want Darwin to remain a great city, and we believe East Point is a special place and should be protected.
After hearing the minister’s remarks we need to pay close attention to what is happening through the Planning Commission with East Point, but I am willing to take the minister on good faith. I am happy to talk to him any time about issues in my electorate and East Point. We believe East Point is a special place and should be protected.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am happy to commend the motion to the House.
The Assembly divided:
Continued from 13 February 2013.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, there has been a great deal of debate on the broken election commitments by the CLP government. We have tabled a document. There are about 100 broken election commitments in that document. The government has not responded to show that in any way they are keeping any of those 100 broken election commitments. More to that, there was a commitment from the current Chief Minister – we know the numbers are being crunched feverously over there – that they would provide in the public realm the contracts signed across the bush communities that were not costed election commitments but part of the reason why they find themselves in all sorts of financial strife for the billions of dollars of unfunded commitments sitting on those contracts. They are hiding their bush commitments, not meeting them ...
Madam SPEAKER: Opposition Leader, can you please pause. Member for Fong Lim, if you wish to have discussions with your colleagues, could you go out in the lobby please.
Mr Tollner: Certainly, Madam Speaker.
Ms LAWRIE: They have a list of 100 broken election commitments, but nothing screams more loudly and clearly of how morally corrupt the government is than this. At Gunbalanya School in the electorate of Arafura, they are losing five teachers under the teacher cuts. They are losing two teachers in primary school, two in middle school and one from secondary school. They have already lost two teachers with the formula change in the last financial year. So, five teachers are going and they have already lost two.
These losses make it the case that they will not have a specialist ESL teacher at Gunbalanya. This is a school where English is their second language. No ESL specialist teacher for Gunbalanya under the teacher cuts at that school, two primary teachers going, two middle school teachers going, and one senior school teacher going – five teachers from Gunbalanya School in the electorate of Arafura. I do not know what the member for Arafura will do to save those teachers on behalf of his community.
Madam Speaker, we will be expecting to see some leadership.
Motion negatived.
Continued from 20 February 2013.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, I have spent quite a bit of time in the past few years arguing for the establishment of the super clinic. There was much argument when we initially established the Palmerston Super Clinic. Finally, AMA changed its mind because it saw the potential for training new doctors there. Then, we argued about the establishment of a northern suburbs clinic. Now, we hear the government is opposing that. But, lo and behold, just two weeks ago, one of the most reputable institutes in Australia said there are not enough GPs in the Northern Territory; they are not attracted here for various reasons. As a result, Territorians are missing out on bulkbilling services and, of course, Medicare.
There is not much point in me arguing about it. The government is determined not to support a super clinic. It is sad that the Minister for Health will let Territorians pay quite a deal of money to see a doctor, if they can see a doctor because there are not many in the Territory. I do not know about Alice Springs, but there are not many in Darwin. I found that out recently with this flu outbreak where people had two to three days wait time to see a doctor. We need more doctors in the Territory.
The Palmerston Super Clinic has proven the program works very well and efficiently. From what I hear, the people in Palmerston only praise it. It is about time this government bites the bullet, goes ahead and works with the federal government to establish something we desperately need in Darwin, a super clinic especially in the northern suburbs.
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Homelands in the Northern Territory
Continued from 15 May 2013.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I believe when the debate came to 9 pm on 15 May 2013 I had a few minutes remaining so I want to quickly recap – and what perfect timing.
We had the Homelands Extra Policy of $5200 per eligible household in homelands and outstations announced on 2 May by the member for Namatjira, the former Minister for Regional Development, saying, ’This money is available from today’. Then that got pushed out to, ‘Oh, it does not actually start until 1 July and, by the way, you have to fill out a really complicated four-page form to do it’.
I asked the question today of the new Minister for Community Services, who is responsible for this area of homelands policy, and she could not answer exactly how many Homelands Extra grants have been distributed to residents. This is now her opportunity in the debate. She can take the floor and respond to the statement I commenced on 15 May 2013.
Motion negatived.
Continued from 21 August 2013.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I have to support this motion introduced by the member for Arafura because fundamentally it is a good motion. However, I have to say it has probably been trumped by the Australian people who have shown the door to Mr Rudd ...
Ms Walker: Why does the member for Arafura not speak on it?
Mr TOLLNER: Clearly the member for Arafura introduced the motion. He might want to hear some debate on it, unlike members on the other side who are only interested in gagging debate …
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: That is right, all you are interested in is gagging debate. You would not want to talk about super clinics anymore with our Health minister. No, you stand there, rattle on incoherently, make no sense at all, and will not entertain the thought of allowing the Health minister to talk about super clinics because you know she would do you like a dinner and we will make you look completely stupid.
Similarly, the Minister for Community Services never gets to speak on homelands because the member for Nhulunbuy …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! A query on process. The member who put the motion on the Notice Paper has not moved the motion. There cannot be a debate unless the motion has been moved, and the member for Arafura has not moved it. He should have been in the Chamber tonight moving the motion.
Mr TOLLNER: It was introduced, Madam Speaker, and moved on 21 August 2013 ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, please pause. The member for Arafura indicated he was bringing the motion so he needs to speak first to the motion.
Mr TOLLNER: It is resumption of debate.
Madam SPEAKER: No, the member for Arafura needs to speak to the motion. He introduced the motion for GBD. He needs to speak first and move the motion. The motion has not been moved.
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! It has been moved. He gave a speech in general business …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, please pause. I will double check.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, while your Clerks are checking, we can advise we have checked the Hansard records for the 28th and there is no movement of the motion from the member for Arafura or, indeed, speaking to moving the motion. Your Clerks are still checking, obviously.
Madam SPEAKER: Opposition Leader, I will await advice from the Clerks.
Ms FINOCCHIARO: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Our advice is the member for Barkly was the last person to speak on it and the motion was adjourned during his contribution to debate.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, you have the call.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, the sieve-like memory of the Leader of the Opposition is on display. It is the same memory that cannot recall projecting out $5.5bn of debt, or the time she could not recall calling her own electorate a war zone …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 62. The member is being offensive. I know he likes to be offensive but the comments he is attributing to me about my electorate I did not say, never have said, never will say. They are offensive and I ask that he withdraws.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, could you please withdraw the comments with regard to the member for Karama’s electorate.
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw, Madam Speaker. It does not excuse the fact she has a memory like a sieve, trying to pull political stunts and mislead the parliament in some way or other. Yes, jump up again if you have a glass jaw …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, withdraw that comment please, misleading parliament.
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw, Madam Speaker. She is made of sugar, that girl over there. It is all right for her to get down in the gutter, but as soon as any one draws attention to her failed memory …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, withdraw that comment as well.
Mr TOLLNER: What comment was that, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: Reference to the gutter. Withdraw the comment.
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw the comment, Madam Speaker. It is all right for her to throw personal slurs and denigrate everybody in this Chamber. Any time the opposition sees itself in a bit of bother you pull a personal attack ...
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I find the member for Fong Lim offensive.
Madam SPEAKER: What is the standing order?
Ms FYLES: Standing Order 62. The member is being insulting. The Leader of the Opposition asked a reasonable question. We are going through a lot of old motions tonight; there have been many wraps in debate. There was a misunderstanding ...
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. He has withdrawn the comment. He made no other offensive comments.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, the truth hurts the other side. You are all a little sensitive to the truth. That is obviously the reason you are trying to change the processes of parliament. No one seems to remember the member for Arafura introducing this bill. We have all forgotten Kevin Rudd already, have we? That is a bad memory that has fallen through the sieve no one recalls anymore – air-brushed out of history like the carbon tax. The Leader of the Opposition said, ‘No, we all support the abolition of the carbon tax’. Yes, right. We really believe that one, don’t we?
A couple of months ago, the Opposition Leader, the member for Karama, was banging on about how good the carbon tax was. This was the greatest moral challenge of our time back then, as I recall. Now, all of a sudden, they are supporting abolition of the carbon tax. I would like to see that in print somewhere rather than mumbled across the Chamber, but you will not come out at that one.
The thing standing in the way of abolition of the carbon tax is the Labor Party. At the first sittings of parliament, I am sure if the Labor Party said, ‘Yes, we will support abolition of the carbon tax’, Tony Abbott would introduce a bill to abolish the carbon tax.
Of course, the Leader of the Opposition has no authority in the Australian Labor Party and cannot direct anybody in Canberra. Canberra’s job in the Labor Party is to direct the Leader of the Opposition. That is why she is hiring someone from Canberra; she has been told to hire someone from Canberra. The fact is Canberra does not trust the Leader of the Opposition. That is the untold story of the last few weeks. It is not so much the member for Fannie Bay having a bit of a challenge. The fact of the matter is, Canberra Labor does not like the Leader of the Opposition ...
Mr McCarthy: Together we are coming after you, Dave. Just remember that. Whatever it takes.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: Here we go, here we go. Now they are coming after me.
Mr McCarthy: And your mob. Come on, bring it on. We will get whoever we can.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: You are going to get whoever you can?
Mr McCarthy: That is right.
Mr TOLLNER: They are going to get whoever they can and they are coming after me! Oh! And who are you going to get?
Mr McCarthy: You are second in charge.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: I am just wondering who you are going to get in order to get me?
Mr McCarthy: A political scalp.
Mr TOLLNER: Oh, a political scalp! We have probably had enough of offering people outside today, so let us not talk about political scalps …
Mr McCarthy: That is right. That is what it is about.
Mr TOLLNER: I am not that full of hubris that I do not think my time is not coming to retire from politics, but it is not now, member for Barkly ...
Mr McCarthy: Do not retire, Dave, stick around.
Mr TOLLNER: It is not now. It is not happening in the immediate short term, I can tell you that right now – touch wood. Who knows what the future holds?
The fact of the matter is the member for Arafura introduced a fantastic motion on 21 August condemning Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and his federal Labor government for misleading the people of the Tiwi Islands and breaking their promise not to introduce a carbon tax, raising the cost of living for Tiwi people and all Northern Territory families, increasing the cost for Tiwi Islanders and threatening business opportunities, and putting jobs for Tiwi Islanders and all Northern Territorians at risk.
That sums up Kevin Rudd and the federal Labor Party in a nutshell. I put it to this Chamber that also sums up the opposition when they were last in government. They put everybody else behind themselves. Political expedience came before anything else. You only had to look at the way the Opposition Leader managed the books.
We have had debates in this place about education and the fact we have had the worst educational outcomes in the country under the previous Labor government. Their response was to throw more money at it. As my friend and colleague, the Minister of Education, informed this place the other day, education spending rose by 46%. Teacher numbers rose by 20% under the Leader of the Opposition’s watch as Treasurer. Guess what happened to outcomes? They went backwards. They spent a whole lot more money, put on a whole lot more teachers, and outcomes went backwards.
Here they are, memories like a sieve, they forget all that. They say, ‘Oh, no, you cannot change the way things were going!’ You were a national disgrace and embarrassment to the Northern Territory! We had the worst educational outcomes in Australia, and you want us to maintain it! Goodness me, how pathetic an opposition are you? There is $5.5bn in projected debt and you are up us because we do not keep spending. Goodness me, you were lumping debt on to future generations. Your member for Casuarina, in his budget reply, said, ‘We had to go in debt. We needed teachers, we needed nurses, we had to pay all these operational expenses.’ They were borrowing money to pay operational expenses. The breached their own FITA …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, the time has now come for adjournment.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will complete my comments and say what a disgrace the opposition is. How proud I am of the member for Arafura ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim! Your time has expired.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Note Statement – Alcohol Mandatory Treatment
Continued from earlier today.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Alcohol Rehabilitation): Madam Speaker, I will conclude the comments I started earlier, and had to suspend through the commencement of General Business, on the alcohol mandatory treatment statement.
The Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Program is three months into its life, and very soon we will be undertaking a review of that program. We promised after six months we would undertake an extensive review consulting with stakeholders and interested parties. After the end of December we will commence that process, and we look forward to people contributing to that. There was much interest in the consultation process before we commenced the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Program, and I am sure that interest has been sustained. What I am seeing is that some of the critics of this program are now becoming supporters and that is good news for the Territory and for the poor souls in our community who are suffering from chronic alcohol abuse.
In the meantime, between now and when that review starts there will be some changes to how we go about this business. I will not preempt exactly what they will be, but to wait six months at least for the review to start and probably seven or eight months before the findings of the review come out or are available to us is just a little too long for some of the aspects of the treatment program and the rehabilitation initiative to not be tweaked, changed, and improved. We will be making those changes public as we establish exactly what they will look like.
The good news, though, is the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Program is working. Anecdotally we are hearing there are fewer people on the street affected by alcohol. That will come as a great shock and surprise to the members of the opposition who are fixated on making the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Program seem a failure. But, no, we are hearing very good stories from the treatment providers that people undertaking rehabilitation are making changes in their lives. They are enjoying the program. Most of them are staying on without any fuss, and are not absconding as the opposition would have you believe. They are participating in the program and I am convinced and very optimistic the outcomes of the review will be very positive.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
ADJOURNMENT
Mrs LAMBLEY (Acting Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I will be very brief tonight. I wanted to make a point of clarification for part of an answer I gave during Question Time today.
During one answer I was talking about the banana industry and indicated that the Northern Territory’s banana industry was worth $400m. I want to correct that. That was, in fact, Queensland’s banana industry. The Northern Territory banana industry is worth something in the vicinity of $11.4m. That is just to correct the record.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I will talk about issues around Tennant Creek and the Barkly.
The Chief Minister, Hon Adam Giles, advised parliament that Tennant Creek was experiencing the highest rate of property crime, violent assaults, and alcohol-related offences, including domestic violence, in the Northern Territory. The release of crime statistics after 12 months of CLP government confirmed violent assaults and domestic violence offences had doubled in 2013, with property offences down across the Territory but higher than ever before in Tennant Creek.
Adam Giles flagged his concerns about Tennant Creek’s dramatic increase in crime in this parliament, citing the Barkly Australian Rules football competition bringing young players from remote communities into town as the problem. Then, with complete ignorance, he advised parliament this practice had stopped.
The Chief Minister, Hon Adam Giles, blamed rising crime rates in Tennant Creek after 12 months of the CLP government on the Barkly Australian Football League, completely ignoring the that CLP scrapping the Banned Drinker Register, with twice as many violent assaults now occurring and domestic violence and property crime rising faster in Tennant Creek than elsewhere in the Northern Territory.
In Nhulunbuy, problem drinkers are banned from buying alcohol and crime is down. However, when the Banned Drinker Register was scrapped by the CLP, word reverberated through to the Barkly that grog was back on in Tennant Creek where the takeaway sales represents 70% of our alcohol sales. Hon Adam Giles’ solution for Tennant Creek was to establish an Office of the Chief Minister.
However, I offered an alternative of how the CLP should spend their newfound cash, demanding the Chief Minister visit Tennant Creek and talk with police, the women’s refuge, BRADAAG, and education providers to invest in what works. I reminded the Chief Minister his government had ignored the Barkly petition submitted in parliament for sports and recreation infrastructure and bush camping grounds in the growth towns of Ali Curung, Elliott and Borroloola, supporting regional development in the arts, festivals, conventions, regional school sports and possible Australian Football League home and away games. I highlighted CLP broken promises for regional economic development in the bush that smacks of ignorance and bad advice from Liberal mates focused on spending millions of dollars on a main street Chief Minister’s Office to hear about the issues in Tennant Creek.
The Chief Minister, Hon Adam Giles, needs to acknowledge his policy settings for governing the Northern Territory are failing. With the CLP promising to cut crime by 10% each year; however, assaults are up by 11%, domestic violence up 15%, with total Territory-wide crimes against a person rising 36% higher than 2008.
The Territory Labor opposition identified budget savings for the CLP of $5m for the scoping study of Palmerston hospital, $3.6m for scrapping the shires, and $9m allocated to the Chief Minister’s Department in Budget 2013-14.
Tennant Creek does not really need a Chief Minister’s Office on the main street to listen to the issues; it needs further investment in community safety, health, education and regional development. It needs to return to Labor’s Enough is Enough alcohol policy, and a government which will listen. Sacking public servants, cutting health and education budgets, hiking power, water and sewerage charges, reducing the infrastructure budget, scrapping alcohol policy, and jobs for the boys represents the CLP governing the Territory, however, is not what is needed for Tennant Creek and the Barkly.
I draw the House’s attention to Hon Adam Giles’ media release, ‘New Economic Vision for Tennant Creek’. This relates to his visit to Tennant Creek. On 3 October 2013, he issued this media release which starts with:
When pressured on ABC radio about the cost and the newfound cash to open this office, the Chief Minister responded with, ‘Come on, Rowan, it is just two salaries, a desk, and an office we already pay for’.
I found that to be totally offensive. First, the Chief Minister is telling the constituency what a great idea it is and how it will develop the economy of our town and region. He then runs it down with a comment of, ‘Come on, it is only a couple of salaries, a desk, and an office we already pay for’. I question the Chief Minister’s knowledge of Tennant Creek and the Barkly, so I thought I would come here with an idea.
Chief Minister, you have new cash to splash around, you have given a commitment to Tennant Creek, and I will tell you what we need immediately. We need to look at the situation where the fantastic company, Hardy Aviation, running Fly Tiwi two days a week between Darwin and Tennant Creek, is now looking on hard times. This is a regular passenger transport service, an aviation service that has linked Tennant Creek to Darwin. It went from two days a week to three days a week. The Hardy company was fabulous in its push to develop this service. It took many risks and has been operating on very small margins.
It reflected the previous Labor government’s record infrastructure investment in the region, that SIHIP was spending $36m-plus, plus extra millions on the civil works of the Tennant Creek town community living areas in partnership with Julalikari Aboriginal Council, and a proactive government policy that said to public sector officials, ‘If you are doing business in Darwin you will catch the plane. You will not drive to Alice Springs to catch the plane, you will get on the plane in Tennant Creek.’
It looks like Hardy Aviation has run into hard times under the Country Liberal Party policy settings that have slashed infrastructure budgets, destroyed consumer confidence, destroyed business confidence in the regions so people are hurting. We need some help.
I have advised people in Tennant Creek of the subsidies provided by the Country Liberal Party government for the Tiwi ferry. The Labor government did it, so I know the figures around this. I am having a punt, but I believe it is about $3000 a month the CLP government is subsidising the Tiwi ferry. The people of Tennant Creek and the Barkly believe we are equally as isolated over land, and would really like the Northern Territory government, and Chief Minister Adam Giles, to do something about this situation developing for Hardy Aviation. Come on, Chief Minister. Let us see some of your cash. Let us see what you can do by talking with Hardy Aviation about the continuation of Fly Tiwi into Tennant Creek. From two days a week it went to three days a week, under the Country Liberal Party it has gone back to two days a week and looks like we might lose it.
Fair is fair. I support the Tiwi ferry and the Tiwi. However, it is a good example of where Chief Minister Adam Giles can put his money where his mouth is, drop the rhetoric and all the other slagging he does in the media release about me as the local member for the past five years - four in government, one in opposition. Drop all that and let us get real. Come to the table, Chief Minster. Let us do it through your Office of the Chief Minister in Tennant Creek. Do whatever you like, but put your money where you mouth is because we will be seriously hurt.
Tennant Creek is on the edge of a boom. We heard it in the mining statement, in the regional opportunities coming from that central part of the Territory. This air service is very important to keep us connected. It is also important for health patients referred to Royal Darwin Hospital. When health patients started using the Fly Tiwi service, it put the edge on it with that customer base. There are existing systems that can support this and make it work.
Chief Minister, we need your help. We need you to come back to Tennant Creek. You can forget the cucumber sandwiches. Come back with the cheque book and talk to your delegate in the Chief Minister’s Office to get around the table with Hardy Aviation and ensure we do not lose the Fly Tiwi service.
I do not want to go down the road of the member for Namatjira who was quoted on radio as saying:
Madam Speaker, I do not say the people of the Barkly are the cheapest voters. We are about pragmatic initiatives. We want investment in the regions. Chief Minister, do not take advice for the member for Namatjira, take advice from me.
Mr KURRUPUWU (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I speak on the Tiwi ferry. Monday, 23 September 2013, was a wonderful day for Tiwi people, the people of the Territory, and for the many tourists from around the world who come to the great Tiwi Islands to visit the Tiwi people and share in our culture.
I thank very much Chief Minister Adam Giles, minister Styles, and the Country Liberal government for the foresight and confidence they have shown in bringing back our Tiwi ferry. I also thank the public servants and staff of SeaLink who have worked tirelessly to make our dream come true.
We lost the ferry and the Tiwi were left stranded by the previous Labor government due to their mismanagement of the previous ferry arrangement. Management by Labor of the previous ferry arrangement was an absolute shambles. This mismanagement had major negative effects for the Tiwi people. As a result, the key economic enterprises on the Tiwi Island such as Tiwi Tours and the art and craft centre were forced to close. This damaged the employment and income of many Tiwi. In addition, many Tiwi were unable to connect with Tiwi in Darwin and the Territory community, to visit family and friends, or to attend important functions. Many could not afford other means of transport.
While the previous Labor government was forced by the Country Liberals to have a trial run of the ferry in 2012, this was far too short and did not give a clear indication of viability of the service. The Country Liberals government and the Tiwi wish to ensure the trial is done correctly and efficiently, and I am sure we can all have confidence in SeaLink to achieve this for us.
We can now expect far larger numbers of tourists to travel to the Tiwi Islands with important economic benefit for Tiwi people. It will also enable the Tiwi to have access to specialised professional services that were not available. Our people do not want to remain on welfare handout. We have always valued enterprise and have a long history of trading commercially with nearby Asian people. It is part of our culture and a key part of our heritage. This ferry will provide opportunity for increased Tiwi employment and enterprise in areas such as Tiwi Tours, art and craft galleries, increased visits by tourists with the opportunity to stay overnight in newly constructed accommodation facilities, and major events such as Tiwi Grand Final and Milimika Festival.
Madam Speaker, far too much dependence on government has taken away our freedom to make decisions that benefit our people. We need to target the blockages that stop our human development. This wonderful ferry will assist overcoming such a blockage. This ferry is very important symbol of what the Tiwi want, and what the Country Liberal Party wants, for the future of the people of the Northern Territory. It is a future of shared responsibility where the Tiwi can enjoy respect through enterprise and hard work by allowing us to connect and work more closely with wider organisations, institutions, enterprises in the Territory, and wider society.
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, in this adjournment debate tonight I applaud the outstanding efforts of Satellite City BMX Club in Palmerston which hosted the Northern Territory BMX Titles last weekend. They did an outstanding job. I was impressed, not only with their facility and the upkeep and obvious love and care their volunteers put into their establishment, but the sheer organisation and scale of the entire event.
This event attracted riders from all over the NT and Australia. The Red Centre BMX Club had people racing, along with Nhulunbuy BMX Club, Jingili BMX Club and, of course, Palmerston Satellite City BMX Club.
I thought it very appropriate for me to mention everyone on the Satellite City BMX Club Committee and thank and acknowledge them for their contribution to this important sport and important part of our community.
I thank Ian Redding, who is the President of the Club; Adrian van Cuylenburg who is the Vice President; Heather van Anholt, Treasurer; Rachel Walker, Secretary; Yeni Redding, Registrar - I see Yeni a lot in my electorate office; almost all of the photocopying for the Satellite City BMX Club is courtesy of the Drysdale electorate office. We do that very proudly, it is all going to a very good cause – Ryan Campbell, Track Manager; Kate Beadman, Canteen Manager; Karlie Patrick, General Committee; Myrna Diamond, General Committee; Kerry Mitchell, General Committee; Steve van Anholt, General Committee; Tara Rowlands, General Committee; Terri van Cuylenburg, General Committee; and the lovely Andrea Campbell who is on the Fundraising Committee.
I spent a couple of hours with Andrea last week helping to sell raffle tickets to raise much-needed funds for their BMX club. It was fantastic. I was blown away by the number of parents, friends, family, and BMX enthusiasts who came down and filled the lawns and the hill at Satellite City. We sold an absolute bomb of raffle tickets and I am pleased the community pitched in and helped raise that money. I do not have an exhaustive list of the raffle sponsors, but I would like to thank Spokes NT which donated the major prize - a BMX bike or GT up to the value of $1500. That helped anchor in patrons at the BMX to want to purchase raffle tickets. So, thank you very much for the enormous contribution. I believe Spokes NT is an avid supporter of our BMX clubs in the Northern Territory.
Also, thank you to AAT Kings Tours who donated a couple of lovely tours. The Litchfield bus tour was one many of the mums were very keen on winning. Planning ahead, they could see a beautiful day out with their family. So, thank you for that.
I also thank Bunnings for donating the barbecue, and also to The Precinct for the $250 meal and drink voucher they donated. Thank you to all the other sponsors whose names I do not have.
I was very fortunate to present the Volunteer of the Year Awards. Deserving Yeni Redding took out the Volunteer of the Year for Satellite City BMX Club. She is an amazing woman, always smiling, always with her shoulder to the wheel. It is not suspicious that she is married to the club president. That is not why she got the award; she deserved it. It was lovely to see her club recognise her for all of the hard work she does.
From the Red Centre BMX Club Maree Hayes was selected by the Club to receive the Volunteer of the Year Award, and well done to her. From Nhulunbuy BMX Club David Brine received that accolade, and from Jingili BMX Club Leanne Browne received their Volunteer of the Year Award. Well done to all of them.
With our committees, clubs, and organisations volunteers are the backbone. Without them we have nothing. It is wonderful that at special occasions and at huge meets like the titles, we can recognise these people publically and give them our biggest and greatest thanks.
I was also able to present title awards for people who participated in NT Titles for five years and for 10 years. Those awardees were Cameron Dubbeld, Josh Ham, Matt Ellison, Jessy Browne, Jole Mitchell, Tahyla Maurice, Matthew Maurice, Anne Yuke, Shane Greening, Callum Dubbeld, Caitlin Jong, Liam Jong, Rebekkha Chiam, Leon Barbour, Marcus Cohen, and Kaitlyn Creber. There was one other little fellow who received an award and we are yet to track his name down, so watch this space for that one.
I also congratulate Tahlya Maurice who is from Jingili BMX Club. She took out first place for the Pro Open Women. That is fantastic. Well done, Tahlya. I am exceedingly in awe of you winning this. I would not be game to hit that track, but it is a fantastic facility and you did very well. No doubt Jingili Club is exceedingly proud of you. Also Matthew Juster, from West Side BMX Club in Western Australia, took out No 1 for the Pro Open Men.
Overall, Satellite City BMX Club was impressed with the results they obtained. They are exceptionally proud of their performance. I echo that it was very well organised. The committee had cohesion; they knew what was going on. They knew the patrons and all the riders. It was an exceptional job.
There was an overwhelming number of riders between the ages of eight and 12, which is fantastic. If you have not seen a tiny boy or girl dressed up in Fox riding gear with their cute little pink or blue riding helmet and their little bike, it is a must see. It was very gorgeous. They were so enthusiastic and starry-eyed, and had a lot of fun, which is the main thing.
The Satellite City BMX Club also made history with these titles because they were the first club to host the pro section and have more than 300 riders compete in that series. It was officially the biggest titles ever held in the Northern Territory, which is extremely impressive. It goes to show how much hard work the committee put in and the results they yielded from it.
Unfortunately, on Wednesday night there was an accident during the men’s pre-meet. It was a terrible one. I thank St John Ambulance for their very quick response attending to the gentleman. He was taken to Royal Darwin Hospital and I wish him a very speedy recovery.
I also thank Karen from Crazy Acres. For those of you who do not know Crazy Acres, it is a wonderful farm at Berry Springs. Karen has been focusing her farm energies on producing a very high-quality ice cream line. She kept everyone very happy at the titles with her ice cream truck. Even though Satellite City attracts a beautiful breeze, particularly as the sun goes down, it was very refreshing to have ice cream made from local produce; that is, homegrown limes, banana, honey, passionfruit, and mango. It was even more refreshing to read the back of the packet for the ingredients in the ice cream which were milk, cream and fruit. Well done to Karen. You are always a laugh, a great woman to catch up with, a great Territory business. Thank you also for supporting Satellite City.
Madam Speaker, I look forward to future meets and the ongoing success of this very special club.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, I speak tonight about a few netball events that have recently taken place, the most recent one being the NT Link Netball Championship, which is the annual NT titles. It is a great tradition in the Territory and one that I, as a junior, attended. I played in the Under 15s and in the opens. It was a great tournament to be able to go away, play some good netball up against the best netballers in the Territory, but also prepare yourself for when you earned selection for the Territory to go away to nationals, to have a go at being in a tournament, and seeing what the wear and tear is like on your body, having to bat yourself up game after game.
We have just hosted a terrific tournament here. We had teams up from Alice Springs, Katherine, had teams in from Palmerston, and also had teams from Singapore and many players from Kununurra. There was a bit of a joke going around the championships that we did not think there were any young ladies left in Kununurra over that weekend because they all seemed to be in Darwin.
I have to say a huge thank you to Tony Smith of NT Link who is a celebrity around netball circles now because he has been a long and lasting supporter of netball in the Territory. We are extremely grateful for his support and everything he puts into it. Without sponsors like Tony, putting these type of events together would be so much harder. It was great to have him on board this year, and he seems set to come back again next year.
It was also the last NT Link Netball Championships for our current Netball NT President, Helen Smith. Helen Smith has been around netball in the Territory forever. I cannot imagine netball here without Helen. She was a long-serving Darwin Netball Association President and she has been in the role as President of Netball NT for a very long time. However, she has decided at the end of the year she will step down from the position. We are going to have a new president. They will have extremely big shoes to fill, but I am sure Helen will still be around to give a bit of guidance while they get used to the job. It was an emotional time for her, particularly at the closing ceremony, because she is passionate about netball. She has given a lot to it for a very long time. It will be great to still have her around the courts because she is a true part of the netball community.
I place on the record congratulations to the winners of each division. For the Open Division, we had a great game with Darwin playing Alice Springs. Darwin defeated Alice Springs in that game. The best on court for the grand final was Siobhan Sefton from Darwin. She was also the most valuable player for the Open Division tournament. Siobhan Sefton usually plays for the Tracy Village Falcons in the Darwin competition.
In the 17 and Under Division, Darwin defeated Alice Springs. That is always a very hotly contested division with the young girls. The best on court for the grand final was Lisa Roscarel from Darwin, and the most valuable player for the tournament for the 17 and Under Division was Gemma Henderson from Darwin.
In the 15 and Under Division, Darwin defeated Singapore. The best on court for that grand final was Georgia Clark of Darwin, and the most valuable player was Grace Hill from Singapore.
In the 13 and Under Division, Alice Springs defeated Palmerston. The best on court for the grand final was Courtney Summers of Alice Springs, and Courtney was also the most valuable player for the tournament.
Overall, an award is given over the weekend for the best player of the tournament. They look at each division when awarding this. That went to Gemma Henderson from the Darwin 17 and Under Division. Congratulations, Gemma.
It is always important to have strong umpires in any sporting association. Without umpires, games simply do not happen and it would not be the same. It is important they are acknowledged for their contribution. A Spirit of Umpiring award was given at the NT Link Championships for not only the effort of the umpire of the championship weekend, but for their contribution to their home association within Netball NT. The Spirit of Umpiring award this year went to Andrea Read from Katherine. Congratulations Andrea.
A big congratulations to Rob Honan and Toni Osborne from the office of Netball NT for all their hard work getting this together. Also to Thea Pearce, the Umpiring Coordinator; President, Helen Smith, of course; Darwin Netball Association President, Sandy Macintosh, and all the people from the associations across the Northern Territory, from Kununurra and Singapore, who put the time in to bring the teams together so everybody could enjoy this tournament and get some great game and match experience and become, ultimately, better netballers. It was wonderful.
Locally, the Darwin Netball Association season wrapped up about three or four weeks ago. It was a very successful season to say the least. You can see the strength of the association growing each year at both the senior and junior level. The car park is packed every Wednesday and Thursday night. There is no doubt in Darwin and Palmerston netball is one of the most played sports.
Many people would have been down to the courts at some time in their life to watch somebody play netball. It is terrific there at the moment. There is a really good vibe around netball, and much of that has to do with the people who volunteer at the clubs. We have many strong clubs at the moment. Every now and then one club might look a bit weak and look like it will fold, but every club in the association looks like it is going strong at the moment, and that is great.
The competition has a very hard-working management team and I congratulate them on their hard work. They are Sandy Macintosh, President; Julie Furlan, Jo Barker, Linda Parnhem, Natashs McCrae, Wendy Manolis and Teuila Te Aho, who does the administration for the association. As an ex-player, she knows the requirements of the clubs and does a terrific job.
I recently had the fun job of organising and emceeing the Most Valuable Player Award Night for the association where we all got together at Cazalys in Palmerston. That was one of the most difficult crowds to control I have ever faced. It was a good fun night, but the ladies were having a very good time.
I have to say winning an award for the most valuable player in the divisions is pretty special because every division has between eight and 10 teams. That means you are, effectively, up against 100 different players to win one of these awards. You have to poll votes consistently to be in the running. Well done to the following players for Division 4: the runner-up was Richelle Smith from Hoggies, the winner was Jade Fejo from Palmerston. In Division 3, the runner-up was Kiteni Holt from Hoggies, the winner was jointly shared by Sarah Durwood-Brown from Waratahs and Lauren McElroy from Hoggies. In Division 2 the runner-up was Makere Keire from Hoggies, and the winner was Taylor O’Dea from Waratahs. Division 1 runner-up was Renae Rograch from Hoggies, and the winner was Roxy Morton-Owen from Northern Districts. A Reserve runners-up were Alex Cannon from Waratahs and Anne Knight from Hoggies, and the winner was Kristen Smits from Hoggies. In A Grade, the runners-up were Anna Hales from Northern Districts and Siobhan Sefton from Tracy Village Falcons, and the winner was Chrissy Hurst from Tracy Village Falcons. The Falcons also took out the A Grade competition.
In wrapping up, I pay tribute to the umpires of the association. We cannot do it without you. I particularly acknowledge the umpires from the grand final who were Kylie Bell and Elice Crisp. They are fantastic umpires with long histories umpiring across the Territory. I thought they did a great job in the grand final this year, and in the grand final last year. I saw them umpire very well through the NT Links Championship. We cannot do it without them. Overall, the umpiring has been outstanding across the association this year and we saw some real improvements.
The reasons behind that were because of Linda Parnhem, the Umpiring Coordinator and her tireless work. Establishing an umpiring panel has gone a long way, as well as the clubs’ efforts to get on board some regular umpires and back and support them to help develop their umpiring aspirations. Overall, it is making for a far better competition. Congratulations to everybody involved in the DNA season this year. I am looking forward to a huge season next year.
Madam Speaker, well done to everybody involved in the NT Link Netball Championships.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I advise the House of the recent Greek Glenti Festival that occurred in Darwin on The Esplanade. This was the culmination of 25 years of Glentis. It was bigger and better than the rest. Of course, when you achieve a quarter of a century it is something to celebrate.
The event has become a regular staple in the Darwin Dry Season event calendar, one of our major tourist attractions up there with the V8s and India@Mindil, and is one of the largest events. It runs over the long weekend in June where you find the Greek community preparing a week before. If you go to the Greek School in Nightcliff and the Kalymnian Hall you will see many people very busy cooking all sorts of food and preparing for the Glenti. There is a lot of work that goes on at The Esplanade to set-up prior to the two-day event.
It is a great favourite community event amongst families, tourists, and locals alike. I learnt this year that there are literally hundreds and hundreds of Greeks from around the country come to our Glenti, not only to attend but also to help. Of course, there are all the people who, for whatever reason, are part of Greek families in Darwin or were born in Darwin and who have to go away to pursue careers or education, and you see them returning in their hundreds to help out their families and their various communities raise money.
As I said, celebrating the 25th year this year is simply a great coup for the committee which has staged this event every year. The steering committee needs to be acknowledged for its work. This is the Greek Orthodox Community of the Northern Territory in Australia, and the mainstay of that committee are Lilliane Gomatos, John Nicolakis and Nik Poniris. I must add that Lilliane Gomatos was the president of the organising committee for the first Glenti and, 25 years later, she is still there, working hard, raising money for charity and for the Greek organisations that are represented. As well, they support the associated clubs and, without their hard work and commitment to this festival, it would not be what it is today.
It is with great joy that I say that 25 years ago I attended the very first Greek Glenti in 1998 with my young family. I remember what a fantastic event it was. If you had not tasted Greek delights in your life, there was an opportunity at the Glenti to do so. For many years, I went along and, as I got to know many of the people around Darwin in my capacity as a police officer and a community police officer, I ended up volunteering at the Glenti. I think I had more fun volunteering than I did attending. I must say the Greeks are very hospitable people who have all this fantastic, tasty food. Volunteers, apart from working hard all day, helping serve drinks and keeping the people hydrated, are fed as well. I must say it was a great pleasure to be there again this year helping out in the bars.
I have seen it grow from its humble beginnings of a few blue tarps strung on a few poles to what we see there today, with a very professional set-up with plenty of shade for people, plenty of tables and chairs, and the fantastic entertainment. Greek bands come from Melbourne and Sydney and what a performance they put on. Of course, no Greek festival would be complete without about 20 or 30 different versions of Zorba the Greek.
It is such an achievement of this steering committee and the Greek community as a whole that this event has continued all these years, and not only survived but grown enormously. One of the most interesting facts from the event and a different way of marking just how much this has grown, is the amount of food that is catered each year. I went to the Greek School and watched them make many things I cannot even pronounce. Whilst I was there, I put some gloves and headgear on and participated in making some of these things. Mind you, we ate a few of them as a reward. They were very tasty. Of course, one should taste them to make sure they are all right for the Glenti.
They started the event all those years ago with 100 kg of octopus. When you see 100 kg of octopus, it is a fair amount. It has now grown to more than three tonne of octopus. That gives you some idea of how the crowd has grown and how people have just flocked to get some of these Greek delights.
It is also important to realise how much work and love goes into this event. It is a testament to why it is such a success. Greek Glenti is a non-profit ethnic event from which all nett profits are disbursed throughout the wider community in areas such as sports, education, aged care, culture, and children’s charity. This year, the charity the Glenti workers worked towards was Give me Five for Kids. This is a fundraising initiative dedicated to raising much-needed funds for local community hospitals. All donations received stayed local and went directly to the children’s ward in each market to help provide the best possible care for sick local children and their families when they most need it. The event was helped by $40 000 funding provided under the Multicultural Affairs sponsorship, and an additional $85 000 through the Community Sports Grants.
Highlights were the Greek music and Greek food. Both the young and old were catered for in the entertainment: Dora the Explorer, Sponge Bob, olive spitting, plate breaking, traditional dancing and entertainment including Zorba Brothers, and lots of partying as well with both interstate and local performers.
A highlight for me was I got to have a long chat with Effie the Greek. For those who watch television, Effie was on one of those Greek comedy shows. I have to say she is as funny off screen as she is on screen. We sat at the back and I left with a few damaged ribs from laughing so much.
There was fun had by all, of course. When you sit back and take a break from helping run those events, you get to see just how much fun people are having. It was great to see tourist getting there and having a go at Zorba the Greek. It is great when they start, but the problem is they crank the music up and it ends up running flat out. It is interesting watching people trying to catch up with the beat of the music.
The event is a major tourist attraction. When I talk to people and they ask when it is a good time to come up, I say to come up and start with the Greek Glenti. If they cannot get up before that is fine, but they should come up here and do the racing carnival, the V8s, and generally have a great time. It is from these events we get the tourist numbers. That helps all of us with jobs and money going into our economy.
Although organised by the Greek Glenti Committee of the Greek Orthodox Community of Northern Australia, the associated clubs that provide support through their volunteers include the Hellenic Macedonian Association, the Greek School, and their associated football clubs. It is great to have their support because, without it, the Glenti would not exist. Glenti is about sharing their culture with the wider community, and we here in the Territory know how to do that.
Madam Speaker, I must give wholehearted congratulations to everyone involved in this year’s Greek Glenti, and also to those who built the Glenti in previous years. In the 25th year, it was a fantastic event, well organised, well presented and well patronised by locals and visitors alike. It is always a stand-out event and one to be very proud of. I take this opportunity on behalf of the Northern Territory government and the wider community in the Northern Territory to thank the Greek community for a fantastic effort, for working hard, for what they do for children’s charities and their sporting groups and other beneficiaries of the money raised at the Glenti that goes around the Territory. Congratulations to all of them!
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Nominations for Acting Deputy Speaker
Nominations for Acting Deputy Speaker
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, yesterday I made an announcement towards the latter part of the day that the member for Nelson, Mr Gerry Wood, was comfortable and accepted being an Acting Deputy Speaker. I overlooked asking the government and the opposition if they would like to provide someone. Therefore, the offer for Acting Deputy Speaker is on the table. If the government or the opposition would like to nominate someone else, I would be pleased to receive that nomination.
CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT
(CHILD ABUSE MATERIAL) BILL
(Serial 44)
(CHILD ABUSE MATERIAL) BILL
(Serial 44)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr Vowles: Read Hansard and see that statement, it is embarrassing. You wasted our time in here.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Johnston.
Mr Tollner: Do not kick him out. He has hardly said boo all year. Is he still talking?
Mr Vowles: Let us talk outside.
______________________
Suspension of Member
Member for Johnston
Suspension of Member
Member for Johnston
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Johnston, I would like you to leave the Chamber. You can talk outside.
Leave the Chamber for one hour, pursuant to Standing Order 240A.
______________________
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I wanted to ensure I understood what the member for Johnston said. Did he threaten a member of parliament to take something outside?
Madam SPEAKER: No, I do not believe so. No, he did not, member for Port Darwin. He has been asked to leave the Chamber for one hour.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Child abuse material is defined in the Criminal Code Act as any material that depicts or describes, in a manner that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult, a child (or person who appears to be a child) engaging in sexual activity, in a sexually offensive or demeaning context, or being subject to torture, cruelty, or abuse. Goodness gracious me, that such material exists.
Pursuant to section 125B(1) of the Criminal Code Act, it is illegal to possess, distribute, produce, sell, offer, or to advertise for distribution or sale any child abuse material except in the circumstances prescribed in section 125B(2) and 125B(4); namely, possession by a law enforcement officer in the exercise of his or her duties under an act of law for classification purposes, or for legitimate medical or health research purposes.
The Northern Territory Police and the Department of Attorney-General and Justice have noted deficiencies in the forfeiture and destruction powers regarding child abuse material. This has resulted in both the courts and police being unable to order the destruction of child abuse material and items which contain child abuse material in certain circumstances.
With regard to the powers of the courts, section 125B(6) of the Criminal Code Act requires a court to order the forfeiture and destruction of child abuse material, and gives the court the discretion to order the forfeiture and destruction of any other articles seized in relation to that offending. However, these powers can only be exercised where a court convicts a person of an offence against section 125B.
Whilst it is a rare occurrence, a court may find a person guilty of an offence against section 125B, but may not record a conviction against that person. As section 125B(6) is predicated upon conviction, the court may not have the power to authorise the destruction of child abuse material where a person is found guilty, but the court does not record a conviction.
This bill, at clause 6, rectifies this issue by removing the requirement for a conviction to be recorded to trigger the forfeiture and destruction power and, instead, requiring a finding of guilt. This will allow the courts to order the forfeiture and destruction of child abuse material in every matter where there is a finding of guilt for an offence pursuant to section 125B of possessing child abuse material, and will give the courts the discretion to order the forfeiture and destruction of any other articles seized at the same time.
Clause 7 of the bill contains a detailed transitional provision relating to the amendment of section 125B(6), and states that the amendment only applies to offences committed after the commencement of this bill.
Neither the Criminal Code Act nor the Police Administration Act contain provisions permitting the forfeiture and destruction of child abuse material in circumstances where there is no finding of guilt recorded with respect to that material; for example, where a person is acquitted of charges of possessing child abuse material; where there is no one charged due to difficulties in ascertaining who downloaded, created, viewed, or possessed the material; where a person is found not guilty due to mental impairment; or where a person is found not guilty after a special hearing. In such circumstances, the child abuse material must remain in the physical custody of police indefinitely, as police have no authority to destroy it, as section 125B(6) is not applicable and cannot return it as it is illegal to possess such material.
The fact that no charges were laid or no finding of guilt was recorded for an offence relating to child abuse material should not prevent the Northern Territory Police from ordering the forfeiture and destruction of child abuse material or, if the material is stored by electronic means, from either destroying that article or permanently wiping all child abuse material from it.
Clause 5 of this bill allows a police officer of senior rank, being rank of Commander or above, to authorise the forfeiture and destruction of child abuse material, any article which contains child abuse material, and any article that a senior officer reasonably suspects may contain child abuse material. The ‘reasonably believes’ threshold is necessary as investigators may not be able to access or view certain data files due to encryption, password protections, masking, embedding, or virus programs.
Clause 5 of the bill states that the power can be reasonably exercised, irrespective of whether a person has been charged with an offence relating to the material, and mandates the places at which the material can be destroyed.
Clause 5 of the bill also affords a police officer, at or above the rank of Commander, the discretion to authorise the return of an article which contained child abuse material to the lawful owner. This power can only be exercised if the police officer is satisfied that all child abuse material has been deleted from the article. This discretion will allow articles such as computers, iPods, iPhones and other electronic items to be returned to third parties where an authorised officer is satisfied the device no longer contains any child abuse material.
Any form of child abuse material is abhorrent, and it is vitally important that both the courts and police have the ability to order the destruction of such material when it is seized by police.
This government is focused on ensuring the administration of justice is not impeded by oversights in legislation, and this bill will rectify the current anomaly in the Criminal Code Act whereby child abuse material can only be destroyed where the material is subject to a conviction for an offence under section 125B of the Northern Territory Criminal Code Act.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
MENTAL HEALTH AND RELATED SERVICES AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 46)
(Serial 46)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.
This bill provides for a small amendment to the Mental Health and Related Services Act to clarify that the rules of evidence do not apply to proceedings of the Mental Health Review Tribunal. While this may be a small amendment, it is an important one. It will keep the tribunal operating smoothly, efficiently, fairly and transparently. It will ensure the tribunal continues to operate as intended, and in a manner that is suitable and tailored to the needs of vulnerable people who come before it.
The Mental Health Review Tribunal is established under Part 15 of the Mental Health and Related Services Act. The tribunal is an independent statutory body that has the power to make decisions about the care and treatment of people who have a mental illness, mental disturbance, or complex cognitive impairment. The majority of tribunal hearings are to decide whether a person needs to be treated as an involuntary patient either in a hospital or in the community.
While most of the Mental Health and Related Services Act is the responsibility of the Minister for Health, under the Administrative Arrangements Order, Part 15 (which deals with the tribunal and its procedures), it is my responsibility as the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice. That is why I am bringing forward this bill in the House, rather than the Minister for Health.
Until recently, it was generally accepted that the procedures of the tribunal were to be as informal as practicable and that the rules of evidence do not apply to the proceedings before it. The rules of evidence are the general body of law regulating how facts are to be established in legal proceedings. They can cover the rules of proof, how evidence is adduced, and what sort of evidence is admissible. It includes the common law rules of evidence, as well as the statutory rules of evidence such as the Evidence (National Uniform Evidence) Act.
The exclusion of the rules of evidence in relation to the Mental Health Review Tribunal is consistent with its role and its aim of ensuring therapeutic justice. Although the rules of evidence are important to the administration of justice and are adhered to as much as possible, a strict application of the rules of evidence is not conducive to the aim of ensuring therapeutic justice or to the general comfort of such vulnerable patients. The tribunal also handles a large number of matters on a compressed time line and the application of the rules of evidence would impede its ability to perform its function effectively.
To provide an example, the circumstances where the rules of evidence should not be applied are, generally, where it is necessary to enable the informal nature of the tribunal proceedings to continue. This could include allowing for free flowing questions and answers, not applying the strict rules regarding cross-examination (such as the rules about not being able to ask leading questions or to cross-examine one’s own witness) and allowing for the decision-maker to ask questions and seek further information to clarify issues. This approach is consistent with a decision-making body that deals with vulnerable patients in the wider therapeutic justice context.
This amendment was proposed to address recent comments made by Justice Kelly in a matter before the Mental Health Review Tribunal (appeal LA3 of 2013 reference 21304497) which cast doubt on the generally accepted understanding that the rules of evidence do not apply to proceedings of a Mental Health Review Tribunal.
Although there are various provisions throughout the Mental Health and Related Services Act that are consistent with the rules of evidence not applying (for example section 129(2) which provides that hearings are simply ‘conducted in a manner decided by the tribunal’) there is no express displacement of the rules of evidence. Although the appeal was, ultimately, withdrawn and Justice Kelly did not make any ruling in this regard, her comments now mean there is some uncertainty about the operation of the tribunal.
It is noted that similar decision-making bodies in other jurisdictions are expressly not required to apply the rules of evidence; for example, section 151 of the Mental Health Act 2007 of New South Wales. Similarly, a range of courts and tribunals under Territory law are also expressly excluded from having to apply the rules of evidence, such as the Lands Planning and Mining Tribunal, the Northern Territory Licensing Commission, the Health Professional Review Tribunal and the Local Government Tribunal, as well as the Coroner when conducting a coronial inquest, and the Local Court when exercising its Family Matters jurisdiction.
Accordingly, it is proposed to insert a new section 133(3) in a similar manner to provide that the tribunal is not required to comply with the rules of evidence and may inform itself, in any relevant matter, in any way it considers to be appropriate.
As I mentioned before, the rules of evidence are, and will continue to be, applied where it is appropriate by the tribunal. However, I also stress that although this bill provides the tribunal is not required to apply the rules of evidence, it will not operate to exclude the application of procedural fairness, also known as natural justice. Procedural fairness is the common law principle that encapsulates the duty of the courts and other decision-makers to ensure they apply fair procedures when making decisions that affect the interests, rights, or legitimate expectations of another person.
The three basic rules of procedural fairness are the hearing rule, which is a right to put ones case; the bias rule with the decision-maker not having an interest in or bringing a prejudice mind to the matter; and the no evidence rule where the decision must be based on logically probative evidence.
The right to procedural fairness is a well-accepted and understood common law right which can be changed depending on the nature of the proceedings. The presumption that procedural fairness is to be observed can only be displaced with clear legislative provisions. Simply excluding the rules of evidence would not be sufficient to oust the requirement for procedural fairness. Accordingly, despite this bill having the effect that the rules of evidence will not be applied by the Mental Health Review Tribunal, it will still be required to observe procedural fairness in its proceedings as it has always done.
Although on paper it appears to be only a minor amendment, in fact it is a vital one. It will maintain the operation of the tribunal in a manner in which it was intended to operate, and will provide for the comfort and wellbeing of the patients who come before it, while still ensuring a robust process. In my view, these sorts of housekeeping amendments are integral to maintaining a healthy and well-functioning justice system.
Before I finish I thank the president of the tribunal, Mr Cavenagh, Stipendiary Magistrate, for bringing this matter to the attention of me and my department.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
ENERGY PIPELINES AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 45)
(Serial 45)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the Energy Pipelines Amendment Bill is very straightforward. The bill seeks to amend the current Energy Pipelines Act in two ways: first, by removing any references in the current act to the payment of monetary amounts and/or prescribed fees, as all the fees will now be listed in Schedule 2 of the Energy Pipelines Regulations; and second, by removing the existing formula under section 30(1) of the act for calculating licence fees, as this will now be outlined in the Energy Pipelines Regulations.
The sought changes serve to bring the existing act in line with other Northern Territory legislation whereby the level of fees and charges for services and approvals are detailed in subordinate legislation rather than contained in the primary statute. This is also the case when existing monetary amounts specified in regulations are replaced by revenue units, the value of which are standardised across Territory legislation and governed by the Revenue Units Act. The monetary value of a revenue unit is updated annually and indexed to reflect changes in CPI.
The benefit of the above approach is any decision taken to update fees and charges does not require an amendment to the act itself, rather only to the regulations or, in this particular instance, to Schedule 2 of the regulations which sets out the level of fees payable under the act.
The proposed changes put forward in the amending bill support a decision taken by this government to increase fees charged under the Energy Pipelines Act and Regulations. It is anticipated the updated fees will result in additional revenue of $50 000 in 2013-14, with an additional $278 000 of revenue generated from 2014-15 onwards. This increased revenue will assist with improved regulation of the sector, including the monitoring of pipeline infrastructure.
It is important to point out there has been no significant increase in energy pipeline fees since 1982, thus the sought increase serves to bring fees charged in the Northern Territory in line with those of other jurisdictions, including Western Australia and South Australia.
Prior to finalisation of this bill, the Department of Mines and Energy discussed proposed fee increases with industry representatives. While few of us like to pay more for anything, responses received from the energy sector indicate the level of increase is neither draconian nor unjustified, given that 31 years have elapsed since the last set of fee rises.
Last, the amendments proposed are administrative in nature and only apply to increases in the level of fees charged and, therefore, do not impact on the day-to-day regulation of pipelines in the Territory.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT BILL
(Serial 38)
(Serial 38)
Continued from 28 August 2013.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, the opposition will be supporting this bill.
It is important our emergency and disaster management legislation processes and procedures are constantly reviewed to ensure we are always doing the best we can in this area. The review of this bill started under the last government. While we may have our fights in parliament, there are often times we agree in this House. This bill is a good example, not just of bipartisanship, but of how responsibility can move from one government to another. The review started under us but came forward under this government.
Much of that goes to our professional public service, which we value, and which helped carry that work through. I appreciate the briefing I received from the public service around how this bill started, where it is going, and why we are debating it.
With technology we have the capacity to be far more prepared for the onset of natural disasters, but this can never be guaranteed. Cyclone tracking, for example, has come a long way. Nowadays, you can be at home at night and watch the path of a cyclone and its predicted route and timings on the Internet. While we have come a long way since Tracy, you cannot take things for granted. Even in recent times, not everything can be predicted. We have seen flash flooding that simply cannot be predicted, including the recent derailment of a train on the Edith River.
Disasters and emergencies covered by this legislation come in all shapes and sizes. In the Territory, we are often most at risk from natural disasters like cyclones and floods, and bushfires in the Centre. This does not mean we are immune to other disasters such as earthquakes or tsunamis. We have heard many cyclone stories in this House. I have told a few. You do not often hear earthquake stories, but I am sure some of us can remember the earthquakes in Tennant Creek in 1988. There were three powerful earthquakes in a row, ranging from 6.3 to 6.7, all within half-an-hour of each other. The main infrastructure damage was severe warping of a major natural gas pipeline as large ground ruptures occurred in a 35 km long fault scarp, with up to 2 m vertical displacement formed.
As the member for Barkly would know, Tennant Creek is a hot spot for earthquakes. This has been confirmed by Geoscience Australia on its earthquake hazards map. Tennant Creek is among the locations most likely to be affected by an earthquake.
My larger family of cousins, aunts, and uncles were in town for the quake, but my family and I were on our way back from Cairns. We missed the quakes proper, but got back in time for the aftershocks. Tennant Creek experienced aftershocks for quite a while. They sound like a road train coming through the town, or a washing machine jumping off its spin cycle. People often think of aftershocks as minor, but these were quite big.
I remember a story of a preschool teacher who suddenly jumped under the table when she thought another earthquake was coming. There was a bit of fear of the quakes in the town; they took people by surprise. The aftershocks were strong enough to knock pictures off the walls.
As all members know, preparing for an emergency requires more than good picture hooks. At home, I have a good cyclone kit, and I am sure most people in Darwin have one. We all know what we would do if a cyclone came to Darwin. Preparedness means a lot, but because a cyclone or flood might be able to be predicted, even to a T, it does not always mean it will have a huge impact. You have to plan for all scenarios.
This legislation makes sure our response to any disaster or emergency can be the best and fastest it can be. The amendments create a streamlined framework for the management of emergency situations in the Northern Territory. While the bill in not part of a national uniform scheme, it is linked to national partnership agreements.
The bill strengthens existing powers by providing that the authority to evacuate areas and direct other activity be available from the point when a cyclone watch is issued, rather than awaiting declaration of a cyclone warning. Of course, this does not mean a cyclone watch being issued necessitates an evacuation, but it provides the authority to do so, if required. The examples the minister provided in the past were around clearing people who are fishing out of an area.
When a cyclone comes to Darwin you often see surfers on the ocean trying to catch a wave. I am not sure at what point it is too dangerous to have a board on the water, but there are always times during emergency alerts where people may not be quite convinced of how immediate the danger is and what they need to do. We need to ensure our authorities have the power in those situations to make sure areas are cleared of people and their lives are safe.
A major disaster requires a response from both the Territory and Commonwealth governments, and their respective relevant agencies. This requires coordination. Inquiries into recent events such as the Victorian bushfires have pointed to a coordination of support as a major issue. How do you get those support services working together and doing the right things at the right time? Success of coordination is often measured by degrees. Responses to emergencies will always be carried out with a lack of communication and information to a certain degree. You cannot always know everything, and sometimes you need to have the ability to make decisions from the best information you have available.
The bill provides a structure so communication channels are understood and responsibility is clearly defined. The review that led to this bill provided recommended changes to improve the command and control structures and to provide for coordinated and prioritised multi-agency responses. The bill amends the powers provided under the declaration of a state of emergency and the circumstances under which such a declaration can be made. It provides clear guidelines for the duration of a state of emergency and the process for an extension if required.
The bill provides clear powers for the enforcement of no-go areas during an emergency. It also provides clear powers for capacity for private assets to be used for emergency response purposes, such as shelters or refugee centres. Obviously, in Darwin in the cyclone season, places like Casuarina shopping centre become available as cyclone shelters. When I was living in the northern suburbs, that was a place you might have gone, depending on the condition of your house. The Casuarina Shopping Square is quite popular for people all around Darwin, and maybe even Palmerston, because of the ability to take pets there. I assume that capacity is still there.
One of the important things we need to consider in ensuring preparedness for disaster is the ‘cry wolf’ effect. With technology these days it is possible to provide SMS messages to everybody with a mobile phone in a certain area. Clear guidelines around the use of technology are essential. If we are to get a message on our phones every time a storm capable of causing significant wind or flood damage hits Darwin, we might let our guard down a little as you get constant messages and nothing comes of it. Every time a large rainfall patterns crosses Darwin, for example, there is potential for homes around Rapid Creek to flood, so you always have to be careful about protocols and what you are doing and saying to people. The protocol when such technology should be used needs to be clear so people know that action is required rather than just a warning or a watch has been received.
I believe this bill has been prepared by experts, and we have every confidence, on our side, that the legislative framework required for the proper response to emergency management is provided by this bill.
Madam Speaker, we thank the government for bringing this bill to the House.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I speak in support of this bill. People who know me and where I live would know my main interest is in regard to flooding at the Daly. I have lived there for 15 years and have had water in my house on three or four occasions over that period.
I also heard the member for Fannie Bay talking about changes in technology, and I will just touch on flooding at the Daly. When I first arrived there in the late 1990s, the only form of communication was radio telephone. Those radio telephones still exist west of the Daly, but we have mobile phones and access to the Weather Bureau’s forecasting sites. There have been many changes in those 15 years, but that, in itself, creates other problems. People are aware that the Daly will flood, and we get four or five days advance warning.
In that regard, I have an interest in the changes to this bill. One of the changes I specifically refer to is the emergency declaration function. As far back as the 2002 flood, I had a meeting with Paul Henderson. I cannot remember whether he was the Chief Minister at the time or the minister responsible. At that point, we raised with him that we needed some way of controlling the people who come down to the Daly, because when we are in a flood situation the last thing we want is fishermen getting lost, breaking down, or running out of fuel, as it takes resources away from the emergency.
The reason for talking about technology earlier is that while we say this technology gives us better access to warnings, it also gives fishermen better access to when the river is dropping; and that is the best time for fishing. So it does have its downfalls.
I see this new emergency declaration covered in the act as very helpful at the Daly because we can close roads and the river to stop people from coming in.
The other side of it – again, as far back as that meeting in 2002— is the recovery side. Every time we have had a flood it seems to have been a piecemeal approach, and there were no real plans in place as to how we undertake the recovery. Many local people, me included, have a list of things that need to be done and we build up supplies. I had an interview at the police centre yesterday, and I spoke about water pumps. If we are flooded and need to clean our house, you need to be able to pump water. You cannot pump water without electricity. If the pumps are flooded, you need to have a pump there and so forth. We have built up a stock of bits and pieces we need to ensure that if we are flooded, we can quite easily recover without having to rely on other people.
These types of things need to be put into the recovery plans: what types of materials are needed, where they should be stored, and what people are available to help people recover as soon as they can.
The rest of the bill is very similar to the Disaster Act. However, the change in names will be confusing for people to get their heads around. I struggle with the different terminology, with different emergency management as opposed to disaster controller and local controller, and so forth.
I look forward to the bill being implemented and to being involved in the updating of the current local counter-disaster plans. A lot can be built into those, especially when you look at the Daly and ask when we make these initial declarations, what height, and so forth, so it is a little more publicised.
On the issue of cyclones, along with the automatic implementation of the declaration with a cyclone warning or watch, I would like to see our local counter-disaster plan cover flooding levels as well. We have minor, moderate and major flooding. Where that would be, I am not too sure. It would be very good if we can document that in our local counter-disaster plans, and this bill gives us the ability to do that.
Madam Speaker, I did not want to talk too long; I just wanted to make those few points. I thank the opposition for bringing this initially, the minister for finalising it, and all the staff who have been involved with it. It is something I have wanted for many years, so I will definitely be supporting the bill.
Mr GILES (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Daly for providing his contribution to this debate. He has significant concerns in this area, as he mentioned in his speech, about the flooding issues he sees in the Daly region.
I also thank the member for Fannie Bay for his contribution and the opposition for its support in this debate.
This debate on the Emergency Management Bill 2013 is a debate about a bill that replaces the current Disasters Act and, through replacing the current act, improves the Northern Territory’s disaster response procedures and capabilities.
The Emergency Management Bill 2013 enhances our current procedures for responding to a disaster through the introduction of a new section dealing with the recovery from an event. As I said in the second reading speech when I introduced this bill, no existing legislation covers the recovery phase of emergency management, and arrangements have generally only been outlined in various agency or community plans.
As has been the experience following natural and other disasters around the country or the world, recovery periods can take months or even years, and the coordination of effort is of particular importance following a large-scale emergency with an extended recovery period.
This bill has been introduced as a result of consultations with the Northern Territory Emergency Services which identified a number of recommended changes to enhance the emergency management command and control structure to lead and coordinate cross-agency recovery activities and ensure proper prioritisation and focus of government resources following an emergency or disaster event.
The bill contains the provisions of the old Disaster Act while enhancing it in four specific areas. The bill enables the minister to declare an emergency situation and to amend the period and extension provisions for a state of emergency.
It establishes the legislative authority and governance arrangements to coordinate recovery and direct resources across government for both the initial relief phase and the recovery phase of an emergency situation.
It also addresses technical issues regarding the appointment of local controllers and counter-disaster council members so appointments are not made by name but by an individual’s position or function.
Fourthly, it repeals the Disasters Act and replaces it with the Emergency Management Act to reflect the broader scope of the legislation as proposed.
The change concerning the declaration by the minister of an emergency situation is perhaps the most important component of the bill. The bill proposes that the declaration of an emergency situation be established in legislation and that the declaration will be made by the minister on advice from the Emergency Management Council.
An emergency situation will provide the council, Territory Controller and the Territory Recovery Coordinator with the authority to activate the Northern Territory all-hazard emergency management arrangements. This incorporates Northern Territory recovery management arrangements which are not formally referred to in the old Disasters Act.
An emergency management situation or an emergency situation may also instigate the activation of an agency’s plan depending on the event. This would have the added positive effects of emphasising the significance of the situation. The key benefit of this is the focusing of NT government agency efforts and heightening the awareness of the gravity of the situation to both the public and the Commonwealth.
Importantly, this declaration will be in place for three days, but could be extended for a further period if circumstances have not changed. In the case of a flood, this is important as flood waters may take some time to recede.
This bill also addresses current concerns about recovery coordination and whole-of-government public information during events. The new act will focus the efforts of all levels of government through the formal activation of the Northern Territory All Hazard Emergency Management and Information Group arrangements. The bill makes it clear who is responsible for the activation, management and control of a disaster event.
Once again, I thank all members for their contributions and thank the opposition for its support of the bill. I particularly thank the member for Daly, who is well-versed on the situations around disasters. I again thank the member for Fannie Bay. I am disappointed the Leader of the Opposition did not make a contribution to this debate because disasters and disaster emergency recovery are very important front-of-mind issues for all Territorians. It is of utmost importance that the Leader of the Opposition should have provided a contribution to this debate. Clearly, this once again shows her distain for the Northern Territory, for Territorians, and for this parliament.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Water Resources Driving Development
in the NT
Water Resources Driving Development
in the NT
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Land Resource Management): Madam Speaker, recent decisions taken by the Country Liberals government highlight the challenges of using the Northern Territory’s water resources to drive development. The federal election put northern development generally, and irrigation-based agricultural development specifically, squarely on the national agenda - and not before time.
It was refreshing to see Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s cohesive and comprehensive vision for the north coalesce into this document, which contrasted against failed Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s flimsy three-page document full of poorly-conceived and ill-advised policy-on-the-run ideas.
Our children’s future, the Territory’s future and, indeed, our place in Australia’s future, relies on the wise use of our land and water resources for the economic development and wellbeing of all Territorians. We cannot leave this future to chance, nor can we leave it in the hands of a disinterest government that understands little or nought of the important role the combination of the wise use of land and water resources can bring to the economy of the Northern Territory. Fortunately, Territorians dealt with the latter issue on 25 August last year when Labor was unceremoniously dumped from power.
We have an opportunity, long since lost to southern states, to ensure that development using our natural resources is sustainable and underpinned by quality science and sensible policy.
Today, I provide you with a blueprint for how this government will go forward in managing perhaps the most critical natural resource for our economy, our water. As all Territorians are aware, the Territory has two distinct climate zones, the wet/dry tropical Top End, and the arid and semi-arid southern region. In the Top End, we usually experience monsoonal rainfall between December and April and a long Dry Season of about seven months. Our southern region has a semi-arid to arid climate and rainfall is somewhat erratic, although spread over the year. This rainfall pattern affects the availability of water across the Territory, both on the surface in our rivers and creeks, and underground in our aquifers.
Water is essential to the existence of life across the globe, but not more so than in the Northern Territory. We use water to drink, to irrigate our crops, in our mines, on our farms, in our industries, and in our homes. Here in the Territory, ground water accounts for around 90% of all water sources. It is estimated the annual use of ground water in the NT is about 150 GL. Of our major population centres, Alice Springs and Tennant Creek rely entirely on ground water, with Darwin and Katherine using a combination of ground and surface water supplies. Almost all other smaller communities in the Northern Territory rely solely on ground water supplies.
The Territory’s main industries of pastoralism, tourism, horticulture, and mining also mostly rely on ground water. Irrigated agriculture and horticulture, which is predominantly in the Darwin and Katherine regions, uses approximately 47 GL per year. Around 23.5 GL per year is used for cattle, and our mines use around 17 GL per year. Around 48 GL per year of ground water is used in urban and industrial use. In rural areas where domestic production bores are the main source of water, approximately 8.5 GL per year is used.
Surface water, as a useable irrigation resource, has not significantly featured in the Territory’s water story to date. In-stream dam sites are few and far between due to the low relief landscape and the relative abundance of ground water close to good soils. That has meant that surface water options have not had the focus they may have deserved.
The rights to use, manage, and control all water in the Territory is vested in the Territory and exercisable by the minister, who also appoints the Controller of Water Resources for the purpose of administration and regulation under the Water Act, which includes the granting or refusal of water extraction licences. Under an exemption in the Water Act, landowners and occupiers are able to use water for stock and domestic purposes without a water extraction licence. However, water used for stock and domestic purposes must not affect the rights of people licensed to take water under a water extraction licence.
How do we manage our water resources to ensure we can continue to grow our economy through mining, agriculture, and the pastoral industry, we have enough water to drink, and retain water to support our outstanding natural systems, our fish and our rivers? Today, I introduce this government’s approach for the management of the Territory’s water resources. This approach will guide us towards achieving our vision of wise use of our land and water resources for the economic development and wellbeing of all Territorians.
This approach embraces the Northern Territory government’s Framing the Future vision of establishing a prosperous economy and also achieving a balanced environment. This approach will contribute to food security and, importantly and specifically, to the food security of our near Asian neighbours, and will maintain healthy lands and waters as outlined in Framing the Future. This approach has four central components: (1) a sound legislative base; (2) an overarching water policy for the Territory; (3) an appropriate water allocation and licensing framework; and (4) scientific monitoring and research to provide the evidence base for adaptive water management.
Underpinning the allocation and management of the Territory’s water resources is the Water Act. Originally drafted in 1992, this act has some significant shortcomings. To address these shortcomings, I have asked the Department of Land Resource Management to review the Water Act with the intention of aligning the NT legislation with a national water initiative, a COAG agreed set of objectives and principles designed to improve water management practices across Australia.
The review of the Water Act will also include systems for water trading and water markets, reconsider some of the current exemptions to the act to provide transparency to assure all Territorians that all users are treated evenly and, eventually, to enable the issuing of water licences in perpetuity. The legislative review is currently under way. The approach to water policy in the past has been ad hoc, somewhat parochial, without reference to the national agenda to develop northern Australia and, in my view, unbalanced with an emphasis on protection over economic development.
This will change. The Territory currently has outdated legislation to underpin water resource management. In the past, decisions on provision of water including strategic planning, timing and construction of new support infrastructure have been taken in a policy vacuum. Similarly, decisions on management, allocation, and use of water resources were taken without clear strategic policy guidelines.
The lack of clear policy approach has led to inconsistency in the approach to water management. What has been missing to guide the development and management of our water resources is an overarching Northern Territory water policy. For example, under the previous government some water allocation plans were being prepared which allocated water towards a strategic Indigenous reserve. This occurred without any policy being in place to impose a strategic Indigenous reserve or any defined formula against which to allocate such a reserve, such as land tenure or population. This is an example of where poor decisions were made in the absence of clear strategic policy governing the Territory’s water resources.
Was this another case of the former Labor government simply taking its hands off the tiller, or did it simply lack the intelligence and the courage to address issues that are important to the future economic growth of the Territory?
This approach has now been reviewed by this government with strategic Indigenous reserve no longer included in water allocation plans. It is this government’s view that due to the relatively low level of use of water resources and the right that all Territorians, including Aboriginal Territorians, currently have to seek water licences, it is appropriate that strategic Indigenous reserves no longer be considered in water allocation plans. That said, this is not a government that dares to be so arrogant that it will not listen to the views of others in formulating policy.
In pursuance of maintaining open dialogue on this topic, the policy around strategic Indigenous reserves will undergo a consultation and review process over the course of the next two-and-a-half years to determine if this matter should be reconsidered. In reaching that position, I acknowledge the arguments put forward by the members for Arnhem, Arafura and Stuart who lobbied hard on this matter on behalf of their constituents. The constituents of those electorates are lucky to have such hard-working and determined members representing them in this parliament.
In the meantime, it should be remembered Aboriginal Territorians enjoy rights to non-consumptive uses of water for traditional cultural; that is, hunting or gathering, ceremonial and sacred purposes under the Native Title Act. Native title rights do not extend to extraction of water resources for commercial uses. All Territorians, Aboriginal and non-Indigenous alike, are welcome to apply and receive equal consideration for water extraction licences to support commercial development.
In order to address the lack of water policy and inconsistency in approach, I have directed the Department of Land Resource Management to commence work on drafting an overarching Northern Territory water policy. The water policy will provide a framework for water management in the Territory. The NT water policy will also ensure the Territory aligns to national best practice in water management; as best we can in line with COAG’s National Water Initiative.
While the Northern Territory has actively contributed and implemented national policy reform frameworks for water resource management and water services delivery, this commitment has never been translated into a separate, single and stand-alone policy framework for all stakeholders in the NT water sector. The 2004 Intergovernmental Agreement on a National Water Initiative and its continuing development, refinement, and interpretation through COAG, will provide the core elements of water policy.
The NT water policy will also be cognisant of the nation’s strategic need to ensure food security through development of agriculture in northern Australia. The NT water policy will cover, but not be limited to, the identification, assessment, development, allocation, and management of all water resources in the Territory, whether they are for domestic, industrial, agricultural, environmental, or cultural use. It will clearly define water rights and put to bed some of the misconceptions around existing rights to take water.
The NT water policy will promote sustainable water resource management based on ecologically sustainable use and development of natural systems, and include consideration of surface and ground water use as a whole where such resources are physically connected.
The NT water policy will define the principles regarding water quality in the environment and public water supply quality, and set our principles governing water use for economic purposes.
Finally, the Northern Territory water policy will set time horizons for planning, outline what Territorians can expect with regard to transparency of decision-making and accountabilities, stakeholder participation rights, rights of appeal, and outline this government’s principles governing regulation.
This approach will require sound collaboration and involvement from the Power and Water Corporation, especially where the policy deals with pricing, return on investment, and financial matters. Some involvement from the EPA will also be required in developing the NT water policy.
Drawing on the approach the Department of Mines and Energy is adopting for developing an energy policy, a dedicated water directorate will be established to oversee the development of the Northern Territory water policy. Development of the policy will include widespread consultation with all Territorians before completion.
Concurrent with the development of a Northern Territory water policy, I will be establishing a new community advisory board to provide strategic advice on the responsible use of the Territory’s land and water assets. The Northern Territory catchments advisory committee, or NTCAC, is expected to address land and water issues across a range of river catchments throughout the Territory. It will enable community input into water policy development, as well as provide the opportunity for focused attention on emerging issues in specific catchments. I envisage that NTCAC will have a range of subcommittees which will allow for both a strategic view and the ability to engage at local catchment level. Water advisory committees will still have a specific function under the Water Act to provide me with advice on individual water allocation plans ...
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Katherine, if that is an appropriate point to break, would like to continue after lunch?
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I seek to continue after lunch, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Debate suspended.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Member for Port Darwin
Mrs LAMBLEY (Health): Madam Speaker, I move that leave of absence for the member for Port Darwin be granted from now until the close of parliament tomorrow night. He is attending the Standing Council on Law and Justice in Sydney. During that time, I will be the Acting Leader of Government Business.
Leave granted.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Water Resources Driving Development
in the NT
Water Resources Driving Development
in the NT
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Land Resource Management): Madam Speaker, the third component of this government’s approach to water management is water allocation planning and licensing.
The Water Act allows for the development and implementation of water allocation plans for declared water control districts. Drafting water allocation plans, including decisions around water allocation, can be contentious and involve extensive stakeholder engagement.
To be absolutely clear, it is this government’s intention to continue to utilise water advisory committees as a key community engagement strategy in the development of water allocation plans. These committees, in concert with the department’s professional water planners and water resource assessment experts, provide advice to me as the responsible minister. I consider that advice when declaring water allocation plans. However, it is the nature of water planning that not everyone will be happy all of the time. I will not wait for consensus from advisory committee members involved in the planning process before declaring plans.
Five water allocation plans, namely Oolloo, Mataranka, Berry Springs, the Great Artisan Basin, and the revised Alice Springs plan, are nearing completion but stakeholders are increasingly frustrated they have not been finalised.
Some months ago, I launched the draft Great Artisan Basin Water Allocation Plan and the revision of the Alice Springs Water Allocation Plan. This demonstrates we are getting the plans moving, giving the community, industry and government a blueprint to effectively and appropriately utilise and manage water resources for the development of the Territory.
Of note, based on community consultation, the cap on water use in the Alice Springs Water Allocation Plan has now been removed. This cap was originally put in place in an effort to extend the life of the ground water resource from the Roe Creek bore field. However, community consultation highlighted the success of Waterwise initiatives in Alice Springs in reducing water use, and the community’s vision for wise use of water resources to facilitate development in the southern region. This government is committed to enabling sustainable development, and is not in the business of putting any barriers or caps in the way of that development.
Work is also under way on the new water allocation plan for the Howard East water district in Darwin’s rural area. In the Howard East water district, current levels of ground water extraction may not be sustainable, and difficult decisions will have to be made to limit future extractions, or allow some degree of impact on the natural ecosystems that depend on ground water. Given the lack of understanding about the number of bores and the amounts extracted each year, some residents run a risk of their bores going dry later in the season if we experience a series of dry Wet Seasons.
Scientists think we are reaching a critical point in the Howard East water district where Darwin rural living and horticulture enterprise compete for the available ground water resource. Commercial bores are licensed and metered, but stock and domestic bores are not, and rural residents do not want them to be. The policy conundrum this leaves is we do not know how much ground water is being used, how many bores are drying up and, therefore, how much is available to allocate for future industry development. We also do not know if, or indeed when, local lagoons and wetlands are likely to be affected by higher aquifer drawdown rates. Without a sound evidence base, we are using educated guesses to manage these water resources.
A review of the Katherine Water Allocation Plan is also required and this may result in changes that would require negotiation and agreement with existing licence holders. Changes that need to be considered include the inclusion of surface water extractions in annual announced allocations, revision of restrictive trading rules, and the possibility of reallocation of water entitlements from licences that are not being fully utilised. I expect my department will commence the review early in 2014.
This government’s recent decision to not set aside an allocation of water in water allocation plans for future Indigenous use will now be implemented by the department in finalising draft plans for Mataranka and Oolloo.
Despite an outdated Water Act and the NT water policy being in its infancy, this government has moved to implement a comprehensive water allocation planning framework across the Territory as soon or as quickly as possible. However, water allocation plans are only part of the approach. The most important component of the water story for those interested in developing our Territory is water extraction licensing. That is the actual allocation of access entitlements for our water resources.
I first point out that it is the Controller of Water Resources who determines whether an application for ground or surface water extraction will be granted, not the minister. The Department of Land Resource Management considers the best information, data, records, and modelling available from reliable and reputable sources before providing advice to the Controller of Water Resources who then makes an informed decision about a licence application. The department has recently published an informative fact sheet on how the modelling works, using the Roper River catchment as an example, on its website.
Since becoming the minister responsible for water, it has come to my attention there was a huge backlog of water licence applications that were not progressed by the former department of NRETAS. As I said previously, the number of unprocessed water applications inherited by the new government and, ultimately, the Department of Land Resource Management was 75; which is disgraceful. These applications were made by legitimate business people seeking to get surety about their basic access to water in order to grow their businesses following the rules, and in good faith seeking a licence, only to find it may take years to get such a licence.
While we may not have an in-depth, detailed and explicit understanding of the effect extraction could have on a particular downstream wetland; and while we do not yet have a water allocation plan in place, in my opinion these are not valid reasons to ignore an entitlement to water resources for development, which is what happened under Labor.
In March this year, the Controller of Water Resources issued a ground water extraction licence to Lindsay and Tina MacFarlane to develop their farming enterprise in the Mataranka area. The MacFarlanes originally applied for a licence in 2005, some eight years ago. As the minister responsible for water resources, I find this type of delay unacceptable. Agricultural businesses in the Territory will not, and cannot, make significant investment decisions unless they have certainty about issues as fundamental as access to water.
The reasons for the delay in deciding on whether to issue the MacFarlanes a licence were varied and complicated, but the key was the length of time it took to develop a water allocation plan for the Mataranka district. Part of the delay in finalising the water allocation plan was an inability to resolve the issue of putting aside a proportion of the water resource for future Indigenous use – a strategic Indigenous reserve.
Another issue affecting the finalisation of the draft Mataranka Water Allocation Plan and, indeed, other draft plans, is the way in which the amount of water available to be allocated for users – that is, the average consumptive pool – is defined. Previously, the department used a very conservative approach to determining the consumptive pool, by looking at the past 100 years of rainfall and recharge data to predict the amount of water available for use over the next decade. As some will know, the past 40 years have been significantly wetter than the preceding 70 years. Average modelled recharged for the period 1900 to 1969 was 103 000 ML per year. Averaged modelled recharge for the period 1970 to 2008 was 180 000 ML per year. Basing the consumptive pool on the overall average of 100 years would not be particularly useful to either the dry period for the first 70 years or to the wetter period of the final 40 years.
Since releasing the draft water allocation plan for public comment, staff from the department and the Bureau of Meteorology have discussed the use of historic data in the modelling, with the Bureau of Meteorology advising the current climate weather is most likely to be similar to what has been experienced during the past 30 years. Based on these discussions, and in light of the department’s own ground water recharge data, modelling for the Mataranka water allocation planning approach has been reviewed and refined and now uses the past 30 years of recharge data rather than 100 years.
It is a fair bet that if the past 30 years had been drier than the 100-year average, some commentators, including members of the opposition, would be demanding that the department use the past 30-year period to model current climate variability rather than the full data set. This points to whether science or philosophy is the basis of decision-making. My department is guided by science.
In the current situation, it must be noted that ground water extraction licences are now issued for a period of 10 years; they are not issued in perpetuity. Hence, it should also be noted that using 30-year recharge data to determine an allocation for a 10-year licence is perfectly appropriate and reasonable. However, it is particularly important to note that at the end of each Wet Season, the Controller of Water Resources decides, based on rainfall, the model and recharge data, how much water will actually be allocated to each licence holder. This means that in wetter years more water is available to be allocated to licence entitlements and, in drier years, less water is allocated. In this way, the Controller of Water Resources is using an adaptive management approach to ensure that maximum water is provided for consumers while protecting the resource for future generations.
The department also has a policy of, in the Top End, allocating a maximum of 20% of water for use and leaving 80% for the environment. This approach is based on COAG’s National Water Initiative and acknowledges the lack of comprehensive science around the long-term impacts of ground water extraction on the environment. The draft Mataranka plan included a cap with only 15% of the 100-year average recharge of the aquifer made available for consumptive use, and 85% retained for the environment. Now that the department is using recharge figures calculated on rainfall for the past 30 years, as opposed to 100 years, and has lifted the cap from 15% to 20% of the annual average recharge for the aquifer, the effect has been to lift the average annual amount of water available for use – that is, the consumptive pool in the Mataranka region – from 19.5 GL 36 GL. This has effectively doubled the amount of water that can be allocated to develop agriculture and mining in the region.
Finally, with regard to the draft Mataranka water allocation plan, I was extremely concerned to learn that it did not, at any time, consider the impact of extraction on downstream uses in the Roper area such as the Ngukurr community and the new ilmenite mine. However, the new licence granted to Mr and Mrs MacFarlane does include new modelling specifically targeted at the potential impacts on water supplies for the ilmenite mine and the Ngukurr community. As publicly reported, the modelling used to grant this licence confirmed it would be necessary to reduce licence extractions in some years in order to protect the water supplies drawing from the Roper River downstream from Mataranka.
This is why the granted licence includes the condition that annual extractions will be set in accordance with annual announced allocations notified in writing by the Controller of Water Resources precisely for the purpose of protecting both environmental assets and water supplies along the Roper River.
The allocation of this water extraction licence was not an irresponsible push for water-based development at the expense of the environment as asserted by members opposite. Indeed, this is a conservative utilisation of the available water resources which will kick-start the regional economy with, according to the best contemporary science available, no long-term detrimental effects.
As I have just described, this government is using the water allocation planning and licencing framework to underpin sustainable use of the Territory’s water resources. We are freeing up our water resources by unclogging the water licensing system and making sensible policy decisions to support development, as well as protect our precious ecosystems.
Under this government, there has been a change of approach and the Territory, and its water resources, are open for business. The Country Liberals government will actively and proudly promote agricultural development through the timely, pragmatic, and balanced allocation of the available water resource. While we are committed to water allocation planning as a principle underpinning development, we are conscious of the protracted lead times these plans require, and will no long hold back development while they are in draft.
Rather than hold up development while water allocation plans are under development, we are issuing licences as if they were finalised, but with caveats. Our approach is to use the best science, computer modelling and consideration of community input to inform decisions about extraction licences irrespective of water allocation plan formulation.
Recently issued licences are subject to an annual announced allocation each year derived from modelling following each Wet Season. In this way we will adaptively manage the resource. It is imperative that we have a sound base for making these important decisions about use of our water resources, and we have systems in place to detect any impacts on our natural system.
The Department of Land Resource Management has statutory responsibility for assessing the Territory’s water resources. Section 34 of the Water Act states quote:
- To enable effective planning for water resource development and environmental protection, it is the duty of the Controller …
- to ensure that as far as possible that a continuous program for the assessment of water resources of the Territory is carried out, including the investigation collection, collation and analysis of data concerning the occurrence, volume, flow, characteristics, quality, flood potential and use of water resources …
Ground water assessment has been the priority of the Department of Land Resource Management’s water resource investigations over the past decade.
The department also maintains a network of gauging stations which continuously measure river heights. Staff periodically attend these sites to measure river flows which change from season to season and year to year. However, much more needs to be done to ensure a sound base for decisions with respect to managing the Territory’s water resources.
Management of the Territory’s water resources needs to balance the needs of the community, industry, and the environment. This is an extremely difficult and often fraught public policy challenge. Despite these challenges and the extensive work which needs to be done to enable this government’s vision for the wise use of our land and water resources for the economic development and wellbeing of all Territorians, there are a number of exciting opportunities on the horizon. Ord Stage 3 is one such opportunity and is an exciting component to the Territory water resource story, and I hope to be able to report significant progress on this in the coming months.
This government is also keen to revisit opportunities to increase water availability for development through surface water storage. This will include looking at the notion of harvesting flood waters from rivers and storing this water off stream to augment the ground water resource. The successful harvesting of flood water would significantly increase the potential for irrigated agriculture development in the Top End.
I make it clear that this government is not considering damming major rivers like the Daly. Off-stream storage, in this context, is the diversion or pumping of post-peak flows to suitable land forms or constructed earthen tanks which can be harvested without affecting the river system.
Computer or hydrologic modelling of river flow and water harvesting options will provide an assessment of the long-term availability of harvested water for agricultural production, and implications for downstream river, floodplain, and estuarine environments. Modelling will allow different harvesting scenarios to be explored under a range of Wet Season rainfall regimes, and provide a basis for defining agricultural development potential by developers. Importantly, the program will specifically link surface water assessment with geographical proximity to soils with agricultural potential.
Since 1998, a range of desktop studies have broadly outlined the potential for significant post-peak flood flows to be harvested and stored off stream. These studies indicate that up to 100 000 ha of irrigated development could be possible in Top End catchments based on surface water harvest alone. Further work needs to be done to investigate this potentially very exciting opportunity.
As I said at the beginning of this statement, the Territory’s future and our children’s future relies on the wise use of our land and water resources for the economic development and wellbeing of all Territorians. In order to sustainably manage our water resources, the Country Liberals government is (1) establishing a sound legislative base; (2) developing an overarching water policy for the Territory; (3) implementing an appropriate water allocation and water licensing framework; and (4) ensuring scientific monitoring and research is there to provide an evidence base for adaptive water management.
Using this approach, the Country Liberals government is opening up the Territory for development and ensuring enough water to support our natural ecosystems and our livelihoods. I look forward to reporting on our progress in developing and implementing this approach in the years ahead.
Madam Speaker, I move that the statement be noted.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, in delivering his statement today, the Minister for Land Resource Management said with a straight face:
- … this is not a government that dares to be so arrogant that it will not listen to the views of others in formulating policy.
I find that hard to believe. The minister is either delusional, hypocritical, or possibly both.
Everyone knows the arrogance and failure to consult with legitimate stakeholders is a hallmark of CLP policy in development and decision-making. CLP mates come first, everyone else comes last. There is no clearer example of this arrogance than the decision to award a water extraction licence to the CLP candidate for Lingiari in March this year. Documents tabled in this House in the August sittings clearly indicate the minister was directly involved in the decision to award the licence.
In March this year, the CLP candidate for Lingiari and her husband were granted a water extraction licence for 5800 ML from the Tindall Limestone Aquifer. The amount available for extraction under the licence exceeds the combined total of the existing 15 licences for this aquifer – 15 times the combined total of the other licences. These existing licences are renewed on an annual basis because the licensees have agreed to accept smaller allocations whilst they are engaged in the development of a water allocation plan for the Tindall Limestone Aquifer, Mataranka.
The MacFarlane’s licence is for 10 years. It is a huge amount of water for a very long time. It threw out the work of the local advisory group that had been working with a two- to three-year plan. In the process of awarding the licence, the estimated sustainable yield from the aquifer increased from 19 500 ML per year to 36 000 ML per year. Based on instruments published in the Gazette between 7 November 2012 and 25 March 2013, the estimated sustainable yield of the aquifer increased by 16 500 ML per year. That is a very large amount of water to suddenly find and then to decide to quickly give away.
Water is a precious resource. It sustains ecosystems, supports agriculture, primary production, and recreation. It is essential to our survival on this planet. Representations from concerned individuals and organisations such as other licensees in the region, the North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance, AFANT, the Environment Centre, the Power and Water Corporation, and the Mataranka Traditional Owner Water Allocation Reference Group were either ignored or dismissed. The decision to award the licence was widely criticised in the media and by organisations whose legitimate interests were ignored in favour of the interests of the CLP candidate for Lingiari.
CLP ministers were up to their necks in it. This is why they will not release the documents in relation to this decision. If they have nothing to hide, I call on the minister again to release all the documents. We have asked for them under FOI, and they have been denied. Show us the documents. The minister told us ‘this is not a government which dares to be arrogant’. These words will haunt the minister well into the future. Why? The CLP is always arrogant and cannot be trusted to allocate the Territory’s valuable resources in the interests of the common good.
As I said, water is very precious; it sustains our ecosystem and supports agriculture. However, it is also a financially valuable resource, and that is what appeals to the CLP. Although the government has declined to release the actual submissions – another example of their flippant interpretation of their promise to Territorians to be open and accountable – we saw in documents tabled in the House in August that a memo to the Minister for Land Resource Management highlighted some substantial concerns and issues in relation to the licence awarded to the CLP candidate for Lingiari. The memo of 14 December 2012 to the minister stated:
- Modelling of the effects of the additional extraction proposed in the MacFarlane’s application on spring flows in the Elsey National Park and Roper River flows is being conducted by this department. If this effect is insignificant, there are no ecological impediments to granting of the licence.
Modelling was undertaken, and it indicated there would be very substantial impacts on the Elsey National Park and the Roper River as a direct consequence of the water extraction licence for 5800 ML per year. It clearly showed the beautiful ecosystems in the Roper River and the Mataranka areas would suffer. A memo from the Water Resources Planner Darwin outlined these very substantial adverse ecological impacts of the volume of water granted to the MacFarlanes under the licence. Based on this document, it is more than reasonable to conclude that the licence should not have been granted to the CLP candidate for Lingiari and her husband. But, no, we saw the allocation made. This is how the CLP government treats our precious assets.
I turn to the legitimate interests of all stakeholders shortly, but at the outset I want to provide a strong focus on the rights and expectations of Indigenous Territorians. Their representative organisations and traditional owners access water for commercial and cultural use. The minister’s attitude to strategic Indigenous reserves misses the point. Many Indigenous groups are not yet ready to use the water for commercial purposes, but it is important to ensure they can access the water for enterprise development in the future. I wonder if this has been spoken about with the bush members.
Without an Indigenous reserve it will be too expensive for most Indigenous groups to buy into the water market in the future. Strategic Indigenous reserves are one way to create opportunities for future generations before all the water is allocated from the consumptive pools.
It is time for the Chief Minister to show us some leadership. The minister is obviously not consulting the bush colleagues because I find it hard to believe they would accept this. How can we talk about constant development opportunities for Indigenous Territorians to get off welfare? Chief Minister, this is your chance to overturn the minister’s decision to not recognise the benefits of strategic Indigenous reserves. If you have doubts this is from me, ask the CEO of NAILSMA, Mr Joe Morrison, to brief your Cabinet and backbenchers.
The minister stated today that he has asked his department to review the Water Act with the intention of aligning it to the National Water Initiative: a COAG-agreed set of objectives and principles designed to improve management practice across Australia. No one on this side of the House would object if this was the true strategic intent of the review. But when the minister reaffirmed his intention to exclude the strategic Indigenous reserves from the water allocation plans, he gave the game away. The minister does not respect the rights of Indigenous Territorians, and the bush members opposite should stand up and speak to him about it. The minister said he will ask his agency to develop the water policy with the intention of aligning the legislation to the National Water Initiative. Does he have the courage to guarantee Territorians today in this House that the water policy will accord and align with the nationally agreed to water initiatives?
They could inform such representations by recourse to the National Water Initiative which the minister said is central to his review of the NT Water Act. Regarding Indigenous access, the National Water Commission said:
- Access to water resources for cultural and economic purposes can make a significant contribution to the aspirations and wellbeing of Indigenous Australians. Until recently this has been largely overlooked in our water planning and management decisions. The National Water Initiative (NWI) recognises Indigenous people as legitimate stakeholders in water planning and management, and acknowledges the need to identify Indigenous water values and water requirements in water plans.
Does the minister understand that or is it an inconvenient truth? The commission went on to state:
- Indigenous Australians have managed their lands and water sustainably for thousands of generations. Through their spiritual, cultural and customary connections to the landscape, they have acquired a deep knowledge and understanding of Australia’s water systems. Incorporating this knowledge into Australia’s water management approaches represents an opportunity for all governments to recognise Indigenous water issues and improve the sustainable management of our water systems.
If the minister was fair dinkum about his alignment of the Water Act in the Territory with the National Water Initiative, he would not defer consideration of a policy of the strategic Indigenous reserves for three years.
Instead, he has encouraged ‘a first-in, best-dressed’ approach to water allocations which has seen additional applications for very significant water volumes from both the Tindall Limestone Aquifer, Mataranka and the Oolloo aquifer. It is possible that all the water from the relevant consumptive pools will be allocated before the review of strategic Indigenous reserves is completed. Does that not cause alarm amongst the Indigenous and bush members opposite? We know that members opposite will not stand up for the rights of communities and traditional owners in the Mataranka, gulf region and the Douglas Daly region. We have seen this.
On this side of the House, we have been strong advocates for the strategic Indigenous reserves, but members opposite have run dead on the issue. Although they claim to support Indigenous economic development, when it comes to Indigenous water rights, this does not seem to be on the agenda.
This was confirmed by the minister’s cynicisms when he stated today:
The government’s recent decision to not set aside an allocation of water in water allocation plans for future Indigenous use will now be implemented by the department in finalising the draft plans for Mataranka ...
Water is a precious resource as it sustains our ecosystems, supports agriculture and primary production, and provides opportunities and recreation. It is a reasonable expectation of Territorians that decisions made by the government on the utilisation of this precious water resource should be based on good science, transparent process and be free from political influence, something we have not seen of late.
Under his new-found approach to transparency and accountability, the minister told us he will collaborate with organisations such as the Power and Water Corporation, but this has not been the case. Power and Water expressed concerns about the impact of the extraction licence awarded to the MacFarlanes on the quality of domestic water at Ngukurr. Those concerns were ignored.
Has the member for Arnhem had a briefing? We have already seen Ngukurr have its water supply turned off because the salinity levels got too high. This will happen more in the future with this water extraction licence being granted ...
Mr Westra van Holthe: You need to read the statement a bit better, member for Nightcliff.
Ms FYLES: I have read it; I have looked at the science.
We have a major Indigenous Territory community which already had its water turned off because salinity levels were too high, yet we still gave the licence for more water.
AFANT has also expressed concern around the impact of the MacFarlane’s water extraction licence. In its Your Rivers at Risk Mataranka – Tindall fact sheet, with respect to the volume of water allocated under the licence, AFANT stated:
- This process is in clear contradiction to the NT’s commitments to … national water initiative.
What will it mean to the Roper River; on the government’s own flawed modelling the current approved water allocations from the Mataranka Tindall limestone aquifer will have the following impact:
Decline in water security and reliability for all the existing users
Increased risk on the environmental health of the Roper River
Greater than 20% impact on the Roper stream flows in 50% of years
In 1 in 4 years the Roper will cease to flow for 30 days or more.
Why did the minister also ignore AFANT’s concerns? It is because he and his Cabinet colleagues were determined to allocate a valuable public resource to a CLP mate. Does the minister have the courage to categorically rule out damming the major Top End rivers used for recreational fishing – the Daly, the Roper and other major rivers? What does off-stream water storage mean? These are more questions from this statement.
Broad-scale use of existing wetlands and other low lying areas to store water – how will that disturbance to the natural water systems be managed and overseen? You might laugh and think it is comical, but these are serious environmental considerations. What environmental assessments will be required, or is that just an unnecessary barrier to development? How will this be applied in areas valued for recreational fishing or high-value wetlands?
There is already widespread concern about this licence in the community generally, and amongst those who rely on the value of the sustained use of the Tindall limestone aquifer. The community fears the CLP water allocation policies because the minister informed us today he will be establishing a new community advisory body to provide strategic advice on the responsible use of the Territory’s land and water assets.
Given the minister’s and government’s track record on sustainable development, Territorians could be forgiven for looking at this initiative with some scepticism. Presumably, the advisory committee will be handpicked by the minister. We did not see any details, any time frame, or any requirements of the members of the committee.
The statement says water allocation will be underpinned by science. Whose science? What science? What data? Will we see the cherry picking of science as we saw with the MacFarlane’s application again?
In any event, we have seen previously unwelcome advice on scientific research, or it is just simply ignored when it suits the government to do so, even when the consequences will impact adversely on the Territory’s unique environment and ecology.
The ministerial statement today said they will not have caps on water extraction, have removed a cap on the Alice Springs ground water and that savings measures have worked. Is that forever? What about continued growth, the future climate, rain variability? It raises many questions. It is fantastic to make these statements, but they are not backed up. The government will not put barriers or caps in the way of sustainable development, but where is the ongoing monitoring and reporting?
No one could object to the utilisation of water resources to support sustainable development, but in regard to the interests of Territorians, the CLP’s record shows it cannot be trusted to properly manage our precious water resources. It is important to discuss water allocation in the parliament, but it is too little too late, trying to backtrack once a huge allocation has been made. It is like you have been trying to justify the science and bringing this forward to justify it to yourselves that it is okay.
We know the government has refused to release 78 pages of documentation under freedom of information in relation to the MacFarlane’s licence, including 13 pages of correspondence between the CLP elected members and the Water Controller. A good start would be to release these documents. Earn the trust of Territorians. We know the basis for this decision is the documents might create an unnecessary debate. What a cop out. What a cover up. You claim you have no involvement, but you wrote many letters which you are hiding. It is not unnecessary debate, it is gagged debate. You do not want Territorians to know the truth.
In his statement today, the minister was critical of the former Labor government saying it lacked the intelligence and courage to tackle water issues. What about the courage of the public servants who stood their ground on the Mataranka water allocation bid? The Supreme Court found no fault with public servants’ actions or conduct. What about the intelligence of members of the water advisory councils and the public servants who are advising government? We did not go shopping around for science or data to retrofit our water allocation decisions like you did.
There must be questions raised in relation to Alice Springs about the Howard East bore field. It is already at capacity and you said difficult decisions will have to be made to limit future extractions. Is that not indicating there might possibly be a cap or some degree of impact on our natural ecosystems that depend on …
Mr Westra van Holthe: Howard Springs is not in Alice Springs.
Ms FYLES: I did not say that.
Mr Westra van Holthe: I thought you did.
Ms FYLES: Is that not allowing the possibility for some impact on our natural ecosystems that depend on ground water? Who pays for the ongoing monitoring and measuring of ground water usage in areas? Will water pricing rather than a cap be used as a water conservation measure?
The minister claimed the review is about creating a water market and water pricing involving Power and Water. Is that to help increase the value of Power and Water for eventual sale? There are many questions. Are we creating a market to benefit existing water rights holders by making their land more valuable?
This ministerial statement is silent on mining and how these two will work together. It is silent on the impact of fracking on ground water. Current technology with fracking uses huge amounts of ground water for each fracking event. There are many questions in that space to do with mining and water usage.
Will the new community advisory boards be advertised? How will members be selected? What competencies or experience will members require? They are some of the questions you may be able to provide us with details on when you wrap up the debate. What does the government want? Who are you looking for in this space? Will organisations such as NAILSMA be invited, or are they now on the other side? Is this another case of an advisory group, jobs for the boys, and opinions you want to hear? What time line has the minister established for the development of the water policy? How can the community contribute and monitor these policy developments? These are just some of the questions that come to mind from reading the statement. It raises possibly more questions than answers – no time line, no detail.
Madam Speaker, in the minister’s first speech in the parliament as a minister, he spoke about his personal commitment to transparency and accountability, but in one of his earliest decisions as a minister he failed on both accounts. I feel this speech today is just dressing to put the MacFarlane decision behind you. However, I do not think Territorians will do that. It will not go away; this will be an issue that will plague your government. This is an issue which represents the decisions your government has made. .
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I was not going to say too much about this statement, but I have decided I will after hearing the biggest load of misinformation ever come across in a speech. For the last 15 years I have lived at the Daly. For the last 10 or 11 years I have been on the Daly River Management Advisory Committee and, prior to that, the community reference group. I advise the member for Nightcliff she ought to read some of the minutes of that group and find out what they did for those 10 years under Labor. She may learn something, because much of what she just came out with was total rubbish. She is ill-informed, and I am not too sure where she gets her information.
I am glad to see this statement today, but I want to go back a bit through history. About 10 years ago, the Labor government introduced some land clearing guidelines. I was very vocal against those guidelines, the reason being that we had legislation introduced and no resources put into the management of it by the government. We had to pull resources from elsewhere. It was pulled from weeds, but that led to the establishment of the community reference group.
I was nominated to be on that reference group as a tourism representative from the Daly. One of the first conclusions that group came to was that land clearing was not the issue, it was water. Water! The Labor government was not willing to address the issue of water, nor did it address that issue for the whole time I sat on that committee.
The other interesting thing is the member for Nightcliff raised damming of the Daly. One of the things that shocked me at the first meeting I went to with that reference group was that the previous Chief Minister, Clare Martin, had ranted and raved in parliament about how she would never, ever, dam the Daly. Everyone presumed that statement meant the whole of the Daly catchment. It did not. It excluded the Douglas, the Fergusson, the Katherine, the Fish, the Florina, the whole lot. For those people over there to say, ‘We are open and transparent’ – what a load of rubbish!
The next thing was the recommendations of that community reference group talked about catchment management and catchment advisory. Were any of those recommendations picked up? No, they were not! All we got was another reference group under the name of the Daly River Management Advisory Committee. How were people appointed? They advertised and asked who would like to be on it. Who picked them? The minister!
The other issue I would like to talk about regarding the Daly River Management Advisory Committee is a meeting of this group I attended in Katherine at one stage. Standing up in front of us were people from the water division – I am not too sure of which department it was at the time – who said they were actively encouraging people not to submit water applications.
Of course, I got quite upset about this and asked why they we doing such a thing. The response was they had a problem with the legislation. My question was, ‘Why don’t we go back to the government and ask them to alter the legislation?’ They said the government was not willing to do it.
Madam Speaker, the reason I spoke is that I did not like what the member for Nightcliff was saying as it was ill-informed, and I wanted to point out some of the facts. I am happy the minister is addressing the water issue and I am glad the act will be reviewed. I am glad we are setting up a catchment advisory committee, not this ‘focus’ rubbish about areas of the Daly excluding all these feeding rivers. I can assure you we are not going to dam the Daly, or any of its feeder rivers. I am willing to say it, Clare Martin could not.
Ms ANDERSON (Namatjira): Madam Speaker, I support my colleague’s statement to this House. I congratulate the minister and the government for its great vision, because it takes guts and vision. This government has a vision for the future of the Northern Territory, of how to grow the Northern Territory. We are not just talking about horticulture, Indigenous people, or non-Indigenous people. It is a driver. As I said yesterday, it is a journey of taking all Territorians forward and of planning for the future.
In saying that, I quote from the minister’s statement:
- Our children’s future, the Territory’s future and, indeed, our place in Australia’s future, relies on the wise use of our land and water resources for the economic development and wellbeing of all Territorians.
The Country Liberal Party is not just thinking about today or tomorrow, next week or next month; it has a future plan for our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren, and what they can achieve through the vision of the Country Liberal Party.
The minister is an active minister, a minister who lives in the area we are talking about and who has a plan and a vision. Collectively, with his Cabinet colleagues, he has come up with something that is viable, interesting and a real journey to take Territorians forward.
I pick up on something the member for Nightcliff said about Indigenous people, which I was shocked to hear from someone who lives in Nightcliff who had probably never seen an Aboriginal person until she met her colleagues in the Labor Party and knows nothing about Tjukurpa Indigenous culture, Indigenous dreaming, and where the cultures interact and meet.
If you look at the nomadic lifestyle of Indigenous people long before we were all born, they were quite good preservers of water. They roamed as nomads from waterhole to waterhole. They drank from those waterholes and they never lived long at those waterholes for fear of contaminating the water; they kept moving. They had their baths and showers when it rained, when the water was plentiful. They were very observant. I connect the observant behaviour of Indigenous people to the current Country Liberal Party and see how the two connect in observing what we need to in growing the Northern Territory and bringing farmers and miners together. We will all benefit from a journey through policy and decision-making.
For her information, I would like to tell the member for Nightcliff I am water dreaming. I come from Walpa the Aboriginal word for water, and my dreamings are Walukulangku the four greatest Aboriginal totems of water. When you identify or need to talk about Aboriginal issues, then you need to talk from the perspective of how that originates and how we connect to that land. Those stories determine who we are, where we belong, how our journey begins, how our journey ends and, in that journey, how we are related to everybody. You can see through the simplicity of our totems how it connects to exactly what we are doing.
We talk about aquifers, how the Oolloo is connected to other aquifers at Tindall, and how it is all interconnected to rivers, like the member for Daly said. It is not just from one catchment but from many rivers and catchments. It is fantastic to put the two together.
This government has a vision of how to grow the Northern Territory. It has a vision of how to move all Territorians forward. This is not a separatist government. It is not a government that looks at one group of people in insolation and grows that one group of people, or deprives that one group of people. It is a government that is bringing all Territorians – black, white, Greek, Italian, French, whatever multicultural groups we have living in the Northern Territory. We are about driving the economy. We are determined to make sure all our drivers, our policies, are moving all Territorians forward.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the fantastic thing about the Country Liberal Party is it is focused on bringing all Territorians on this journey with us. We are not prepared to leave anyone behind. We are not prepared to leave anyone on the side and walk straight past them, or jump over them. This is a government that will drive through our policy initiatives which will encourage anybody to come and develop in the Northern Territory. We are a government that will take all Territorians forward.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak on the Minister for Primary Industry and Land Resource Management’s statement about water.
It is interesting reflecting on Question Time today and some of the concerns raised by the Labor opposition about water and water allocation, and how dare we use a resource of the Northern Territory, particularly as the frame of this debate is strategic Indigenous reserves over water and whether that is a rights-based issue or an economics-based issue.
At the outset, one might think that reserving water for use by Aboriginal Territorians is the right thing to do, and on the surface it is. However, we have to put in place the assessment of the amount of surface water and ground water in those reservations, and think in the context that we do not want to lock up natural resources that are recharged and renewed, because aquifers renew and surface water comes back on a cyclical basis. We need to ensure those assets and resources are available for people to utilise to become productive, grow things, and build jobs.
We talk here about getting people off welfare. You cannot get people off welfare if there are no jobs. We were in the member for Arnhem’s electorate two months ago talking to the people of Ngukurr about economic development and opportunities. That is where I learnt about the great success of our Western Desert, the number of local people who are working there and the opportunity to expand that. I spoke with the member for Arnhem about what the other opportunities there are, because a couple of the old men from Ngukurr came to me and said, ‘Can you come out? We want economic development.’ We spoke about the opportunity around farming and what could be done. I cannot remember his name, member for Arnhem, but one old man said, ‘I have 297 km of land. We would be very interested in farming that. Can we turn that into farm land?’ I said …
Ms Lee: Mr Rogers.
Mr GILES: Mr Rogers. I said, ‘We would be very keen to investigate it’. You cannot say yes straightaway because you give people false hope. We need to look at the surface water, the underground water, what water is available in the Roper and Wilton, and how you could access that. We are conducting research through the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries to identify the type of crops that could be grown there. Are they crops that could support food security for the Roper region of the Northern Territory of Australia or Asia? We are in a world market. We have to look after ourselves first, but can we contribute to other people’s food security? That work is continuing through the minister for Primary Industry’s department.
It is the same type of work we are undertaking with the Tiwis. The Tiwis have said they want more land available. I believe 30 000 ha at the moment is available for forestry, which employs many people – a great opportunity there. There are good things to come in the near future, member for Arafura. They are keen to farm another 10 000 ha, and we are keen help facilitate that. We are not out there telling people what to do; we will not do that. It is not a top-down approach; it is about offering that opportunity to see what can be done. If we are to farm that 10 000 ha – whether to grow trees for plantation timber for pulp or to grow pineapples, which is an opportunity coming up at the moment and looks pretty good, or for growing anything – you need access to water.
The importance of this statement is to be able to, from our point, parochially advance the opportunity around utilising water for economic development to create jobs. If we do not and we lock it up with the right space movement of the Labor Party and the Labor opposition, all we do is stymie development. That is what we saw over the last eleven-and-a-half years of the former Labor government: that development opportunity not happening.
It was interesting when we went over for the launch of the Tiwi ferry on 16 September, if memory serves me correctly, member for Arafura. The people there were so excited about the ferry coming back and were asking, ‘What is the next thing?’ You are not going to have 100% of the population, but every person who spoke to me asked, ‘What is the next thing? When can we have a hotel? When can we have our roads done so we can support the wood chip getting out? How can you facilitate the Ezion port development? What can you do to support farm growth?’ They are essential elements in life and one of those is water and how to make that happen.
We had a question today from the member for Nhulunbuy – null and void – about permits being a trade barrier. I have had this conversation with the Tiwi people since 2007 when I spoke about the issues around permits. A prime example is if we want people to go to Tiwi, to move from the jetty to the shopping centre, to the art and culture centre, to a potential tourism destination or to the forestry project, you have to utilise those main access arterial routes without the need for a permit. It is not saying the permit system is bad, but the time to get the permit is a restraint to trade. You need to have the free flow of goods and services to support any broad economic advancement approach. That is the area we are driving.
This is not just about the bush when talking about water allocation. Darwin is, in a broad way, a large service centre, as an urban capital city of the Territory, for the rest of the Northern Territory. Many of the mines throughout the Northern Territory, much of the pastoral sector, much of the housing development and land release – all the economic drivers in the Northern Territory – have a core base in Darwin, and Darwin has become a service centre. More agricultural, mining and horticultural development creates jobs for people in Darwin and the northern suburbs.
You have people like the members for Nightcliff and Fannie Bay, and the incoherent and unintelligible member for Johnston, who are fighting against development in the regions. However, the regions give jobs to the people who live in Darwin and the regions as well. There is the fly-in fly-out approach or the drive-in drive-out approach. Developing jobs at Mataranka is about supporting Darwin as well as supporting Mataranka. It is about supporting the service station in Katherine as people drive up and down, and supporting the roadhouse at Emerald Springs and the lovely little outdoor area they have there where you can have lunch or dinner.
This is about jobs for all Territorians, not just the bush. That is where the difference in the focus is from this government to the previous government. They were more interested in pork-barrelling some strategic seats, not delivering lifelong outcomes and a strategic vision and direction for the Territory. We want to develop the whole of the Territory. It is not easy, it is a challenge.
The member for Stuart has a vast area in the bottom half of her electorate. Many people ask me, ‘What can you do out there?’ There are major opportunities. You have to look at what the natural resource is. Sometimes that is labour. Some people are fortunate, like those in the member for Namatjira’s electorate at Uluru, a prime tourism destination. Some people have, like in the member for Arafura’s electorate, a big uranium deposit with an ERA mine. It creates jobs and stimulates economic opportunity. Some people have a range of different things.
What you need to do – and I say this to all members – is look at what your natural resource is and how you develop it? It could be a Telstra call centre at Papunya. There is no reason why people at Papunya could not operate a national call centre operation. Think outside the square.
It is hard for us to come forward with 73 prescribed communities, if you want to measure communities in that numerical fashion, or the 1000 discrete communities in the Northern Territory, including homelands, and give everyone an economic solution straightaway. You cannot do it. Logistically, you cannot. All we can say is we are prepared to provide economic development and growth opportunities to anyone who comes forward. We are not going to tell you what to do. We will work with you, like on the Tiwis and in Ngukurr, Wadeye, Blue Mud Bay and Groote. We would like to do it in Gove, but there is a really bad member out there …
Mr Tollner: She stops everything.
Mr GILES: She does stops anything. She complains, she does not lead her electorate to drive change ...
Mr Westra van Holthe: The member for not on board?
Mr GILES: Not on board, null and void.
I reflect back. I know we are talking about water, but we are talking about regional development as a capacity issue. At the recent meeting we had in Gove a few weeks ago with the Regional Development Committee, we spoke about Gove and I explained everything I had explained to the member for Nhulunbuy who had not relayed that to her electorate. I explained it so people understood where things were at, and they were very happy to have that information Lynne Walker never passed on. We spoke about the other opportunities for regional development.
I will give you a prime example of a bad local member. The Regional Development Committee spoke about improving the road between Gove and Gapuwiyak. I am not sure of the exact distance of that road; I think it is 100 km-and-something. The conversation was that if we improve that road, Gapuwiyak and all of the outstations along the way and around the district have an opportunity to get into town for better shopping with less wear and tear of cars, fewer motor accidents, fewer deaths – all those sort of things. They asked me, ‘Why are we never considered for the road?’ I said, ‘I have sat in parliament for five years and have been a candidate in Lingiari before, and never once have I heard the current member for Nhulunbuy, or the previous member, talk about doing anything on that road’. I have never heard the member for Nhulunbuy talk about fixing the road between Gove and Gapuwiyak. I have never heard that. I told them that and they said …
Mr Westra van Holthe: Never heard her talk about gas to Gove either.
Mr GILES: No, she did not. However, that road capacity is a regional development. That connects people and provides better access for trade and so forth, and reduction of cost-of-living expenses for communities, and outstation and homeland residents ...
Ms Lee: No, but she will complain to everyone in Gapuwiyak about it.
Mr GILES: Oh, yes, she will complain and dog whistle, but she has never raised that in here. That is a key aspect of regional development in that electorate for the East Arnhem region that would provide massive benefits for those communities, outstations and homeland residents.
I said, ‘I am sorry, I cannot apologise on behalf of the member for Nhulunbuy, but I can commit to starting to raise it as an issue’, as we are doing right now in this Chamber.
I spoke to Industry Minister, Ian Macfarlane, and said, ‘Mate, we need to start thinking about this road. Let’s get it into the conversation. We cannot come out there with the money now but let’s get the conversation happening. Let’s start lobbying, because Lynne Walker just does not do her job.’ That is the aspect and the process we are taking forward with regional economic development.
Coming back to the statement about water allocation; at the moment, as I understand, there are around 70 applications for water in the Northern Territory. Seventy people have applied to access water so they can undertake economic development activities: growing tomatoes, watermelons whatever it may be. The issue when we first came into government was there was a list this high of applications which had never been considered because Labor was too scared to allocate water because of their Green preference deal in an election. We did not get the economic development stuff, they just sat on it.
There are all these stories about Tina MacFarlane at Mataranka. They applied in 2005, and in 2013 they got their licence. That is eight years later. Just think of all the economic development which could have happened. We are not going to throw the baby out with the bath water, but we want to create jobs and start punching above our weight from the Northern Territory’s point of view. There are people listening and watching.
The way the Northern Territory government is funded, 80% of our budget comes from the federal government. We get a formula called horizontal fiscal equalisation where, roughly speaking, for every dollar we put in, we get $5 back through the GST revenue.
We have to start lifting our contribution up to get better economics out of the budgetary process. To do that, you start increasing your GDP and economic growth, and you invest in things like allocating water, using those resources and creating jobs. It brings up economic prosperity, and people in Fannie Bay, Johnston and Nightcliff will start getting more jobs. People in Barkly might get a job. I know the member for Barkly did not provide any economic solutions for Barkly in eleven-and-a-half years of government. The poor people in Tennant Creek are thinking, ‘What is our future?’ The only thing that can be raised is a clown uniform, Hector the Cat, and not much else. We need to be able to provide economic solutions to drive this in the regions and get real solutions. We will talk to Tennant Creek and the Barkly about water allocation, farming and all of these things.
This was not a structured speech but a passionate plea to support the minister’s statement and the appropriate utilisation of water. Encourage him to work with the department, to speed up the application approval process and, where environmentally sound, get those water allocations out, get development on the ground, and help people get jobs in the regions and in towns to have economic growth in the Northern Territory. Then we can start saying the Northern Territory, and Darwin in particular, is not the next frontier but is today’s frontier.
The idea about the gateway to Asia and security into the sub-Asian regional context can be about now. This is how you make things happen. Minister, I give you my vote of confidence that what you are doing is exactly what needs to happen in the Northern Territory.
The reason I went through those figures this morning about increase in business confidence, increase in dwelling constructions and the leading economic data in the nation is that these things are happening because we are open for business and are doing the job across every portfolio. We will continue to do it. The naysayers on the other side who drove government to the highest debt per capita in this nation, way beyond Canberra’s debt level on a per capita basis …
Mr Westra van Holthe: Doubled.
Mr GILES: Nearly doubled, that is exactly right. Those naysayers can fight amongst themselves. We will deal with 70 water application licences, with building 2000 new units in Darwin in the next couple of years, and building new hotels. You can sit there and count your eight numbers, divide it into two, four and four. The member for Fannie Bay can race around and see if he can get that extra number because the Leader of the Opposition is not doing her job and standing up for the Territory.
Before I sit down, I will reflect on a thought I had during lunch. If the level of debate that comes out of the opposition continues, particularly throughout Questions Time, and when the member for Johnston tries to fight people in parliament, you bring us all down. You want to raise the level of debate and get economic growth here …
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Standing Order 62: offensive or unbecoming words. I ask that the member withdraw that, please.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: What were the words?
Mr VOWLES: Around fighting, looking for a fight, and stuff like that.
Mr Westra van Holthe: I think the member for Johnston could make a personal explanation if he disagrees.
Mr GILES: Yes, maybe. Mr Deputy Speaker, there were no offensive or unbecoming words. I reflected on the member for Johnston who earlier today offered out the member for Greatorex.
Normally, what you do in a debate is come up with a coherent voice and coherent arguments and try to debate your position, not offer people out, but …
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I ask for a ruling on the offensive or unbecoming words he reiterated and ask to have that withdrawn. I, at no stage, offered that the member for Greatorex meet outside, other than for a coffee.
Mr GILES: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker!
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not find any of the words offensive.
Mr GILES: A glass jaw. Offers someone outside then …
Mr Vowles: Oh, come on!
Mr GILES: If you do not believe you tried to do something like that, I suggest you make a personal statement.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the minister for his statement to the House. It was a very good statement. It shows we are driving economic growth and supporting the regions. All the statistical data for the Northern Territory around the country and the Asian region shows the Territory is the place to be. Keep it up, good job.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I heard this debate, and some of it was very light and some very shallow. Some of it poured scorn on people on this side, and some was more about filling in time rather than hitting this debate where it should be hit.
This is about water resources and, of course, water resources are important for many reasons in the Northern Territory. I support much of what the minister has said in his statement. We need water for the development of the Northern Territory; there is no doubt about that. One of the problems in a debate like this is when you say, ‘I have a different point of view’, you are, all of a sudden, put in the anti-development basket. It is a bit sad that is the case. The Chief Minister thinks that if you have some concerns about water allocation you are up with the greenies, or you do not support development. That is not the case.
I have said, probably since the first time I stood in this parliament, that primary industry was always looked at as the poor cousin when the Labor Party came into office. Even when they went out of office, I still felt it was the poor cousin.
I appreciate where the minister is coming from. He thinks we should develop the resources we have in the Territory, and we need to use water to provide the means for that development to occur. I have no argument with that at all, but we are living in a time when we should know the best way to develop that so it will be sustainable.
Sustainability is a word that gets thrown around a lot. I have said before that sustainability means we develop things today that do not cost future generations and taxpayers money to repair and fix the mistakes we have made by not thinking things through properly, and by making sure we do not wreck the environment, because sometimes there is irreparable damage, and sometimes it costs the taxpayer a great deal of money to fix. I try to at least put it into that context.
The minister knows my views on the Mataranka water allocation, and I will not go through all that again, except to say there seems to be this idea that the government has said, ‘We have more water’. They believe the Bureau of Meteorology figures allow them to use a different interpretation of how much water there will be, so there is a greater amount of water that can be handed out. We can argue about that. I have figures from CSIRO which dispute the methodology the Bureau of Meteorology is using, which is the basis of the government’s assessment of how much water is allowed to be allocated.
My concern is water should be given out for what is required, not necessarily what is asked for. People will ask for more than they need simply to cover themselves when there is a drought, or they see future advantage in having some extra water up their sleeve, whether they want to subdivide their land or we bring in water trading in the future. Of course, people will argue for more than they need.
The government, from my point of view, has said, ‘Wow, we have this big bucket of water, therefore, we will give out large amounts of water to people because we want the Territory to grow. We are open for business.’ That is my concern. My philosophy is that regardless of whether you have a big bucket of water you should use it wisely and carefully, and it should be given out according to what is needed, not what someone wants. It is like saying to someone, ‘Do you want a whole bag of lollies or do you just need a couple of lollies?’ Water should be given out carefully. It is a Territory resource we need to manage very carefully.
Statements made at that time by the Territory Farmers Association back up my opinion. They were statements from the water advisor at that time. I will use his name because he is from down south: Marty Miles, who was the modeller. He said in one case an incremental allocation depended on proven water supply given; however, a smaller licence had been issued previously and not yet used. When the Chief Minister spoke about people moving the Territory ahead, there were cases where the allocation had been given and not used. He is saying you need to have a development based on proof the person who wants a bigger licence has a record of achieving some development in agriculture or horticulture already, then top that up with a higher allocation. To me, that made good sense.
It was not about stifling agricultural development, it sent out the right message that water needs to be given out carefully based on, in some cases, the record the applicant has and the availability of water as well. The minister knows my views on that and I will not harp on that too much.
There is also the issue of Indigenous strategic water reserves. The minister said in his statement that we may look at it down the track, but there are two sides to this argument. Some of the side which supports an Indigenous strategic water reserve comes from the CLP. One is from the member for Daly, who said allocating water reserves would help generate economic development for traditional owners. He said he was on the Daly River water – it was not called that, it was called …
Mr Westra van Holthe: DRMAC – management advisory committee.
Mr WOOD: Yes, I will call it DRMAC, he was on that. He had a lot of experience, as he said in his speech, but he came out in strong support of traditional owners having water reserves allocated for future economic development. He told me one of the possibilities was using their allocation to supply the ilmenite mine. We know there are issues in relation to the ilmenite mine. If the Roper River dries up or goes below a certain level, that mine will have to stop production because it would not have a source of water.
Also, the member for Stuart, according to the ABC on 13 June, said she believed the government should set aside water reserves for the future economic development of Aboriginal communities. She said she supports the push for a different approach by the member for Daly, Gary Higgins. There is, obviously, a different opinion within the government over this matter. It is easy to say Aboriginal people are just like everybody else, but Aboriginal people need expertise to develop their land.
I heard the Chief Minister talk about developing land near Ngukurr. I have heard reports about them wanting to put a large banana farm in and, if that can be done, terrific. However, what was missing in that discussion – and, by the way you will need a lot of water if you grow bananas, as long as you can keep panama and banana freckle out of there – was that you will need people with qualifications. It is very nice to go to communities and say, ‘We think you can develop this and that’. I grew vegetables at Bathurst Island and am disappointed to hear the farm at Bathurst Island has folded. One of the problems with those enterprises was it was difficult to get people with the expertise to develop them and to stay with those communities. If you are to go hand in hand with some of these enterprises, you need to ensure Aboriginal people are given the opportunity to become qualified.
To grow bananas is not a case of putting a banana in the ground and hoping for the best. It is a seven-day-a-week job. If you go to a banana plantation in the Territory or interstate, you will find it is a science. It requires a scientific background with a good managerial knowledge to back it up, because it is not just a matter, as I said, of growing a plant in the ground and hoping it will be all okay.
I support what the Chief Minister said about the plans he is looking at: there needs to be the expertise. If you are to employ Aboriginal people you do not just employ them as labourers. We need to ensure they are helped to get the educational skills required to be able to manage those projects. That is what happened 30 or 40 years ago. Have we moved on from there?
If there are opportunities to use the water resources we have to develop economic enterprises through agriculture and horticulture on Aboriginal land, I support that. However, there are other things that need to go with it. It is easy to say that standing here; it is not so easy to do it in reality. Anyone who has been involved in primary industry, even if it is cattle, should look at horticulture today, and the issues the organic farms have in Batchelor. They have been battling cyclones and other things such as panama disease, and now they have copped banana freckle. Life is not that easy when it comes to agricultural development.
The government should not leave the issue of Indigenous water reserve for a three-year moratorium; it needs to be part of this current review. Organisations like NAILSMA should be part of that review. The Mataranka Indigenous Water Forum was held in 2011. Many Indigenous people turned up to be part of that forum, so there are people who are interested in this issue of water allocations.
It would be appropriate for this review to ensure organisations like NAILSMA are included and give their point of view, because it is obvious there are different viewpoints on this. It should not be brushed away for the next three years because, by that time, who knows whether the entitlement of the water allocation for the Mataranka area, for instance, would have been used.
There are some other issues the minister has come across. I applaud this statement because it has a huge amount in it, and there is no way I can cover many of the issues thoroughly in a short speech today.
One area which is missing in this review is water for domestic supply for towns and cities, especially Darwin. I live next to the Howard East bore field aquifer. The minister talked about it and I will get on to that later. We have an issue we cannot avoid, that being if the government is promoting the development of Darwin – I have heard people say, ‘One day we will have a million people in Darwin’. I have heard people talk about developing Cox Peninsula, Murrumujuk, Weddell – infill. That requires water, and the one thing Darwin does not have is great geographical features to provide water storage for a large population. We have the Darwin River Dam, which just happened to fit nicely in a valley, which has been there since approximately 1974. We have some plans for other dams such as the Warrai at Adelaide River, the Marrakai, which whether it ever happens is probably a point of debate because it is a fairly flat area. One of the problems with flat, wide water storages is high evaporation rates. A Finniss dam was proposed at one stage.
We have this issue of whether we can store enough water in the Darwin area to supply sufficient water for a large population. That is something that would need to be covered by this review. It may be something the Northern Territory Planning Commission should be looking at. You will have development in the Top End or the Darwin region if there is not an adequate supply of water.
I raise that as an issue which needs to be looked at. On one side there is water storage, on the other is the wise use of water. That is an area we also need to ensure we look at. We live in a climate where we have six months of Dry Season and high evaporation, and people will say we are the city that uses the most water per head of population. We probably do, but what other city in Australia has six months of dry weather and high evaporation, especially at this time of year? We need to be looking at water conservation as well as possible future water storage.
In relation to mining, I mentioned yesterday that you cannot have allocations for agriculture separate from allocations for mining. The two have to go together. When we are talking about water allocations, we have to be on a level playing field. We do not need allocations for mining being separate from allocations from agriculture. The two need to be combined – and I will take this up – as part of the catchment plan government is talking about. That is good because we should always look at rivers as a total catchment. We can look at sub-catchments, but rivers as total catchments. That is another area.
Yesterday, I mentioned the issue of fracking. There is no doubt this is an issue we cannot shy away from. At the 15 Mile community someone has put up posters along the fence, all anti-fracking. There have been meetings in the rural area against fracking. It is not an issue were you can just say, ‘They are a bunch of greenies, we will ignore them’. The government has a responsibility to ensure the science behind fracking is clearly put forward to the community to promote the proper safeguards that should be put in place if we are to undertake fracking.
People might say, in the case of shale fracking, it will be an issue of the aquifer becoming contaminated if not done properly. If the regulations and the processes for fracking are put into place, and there are people who ensure these processes are done, then the risk to aquifers is minimal. However, the issue is there are people saying this will happen; there are chemicals which will pollute.
I have looked at the science and have been doing as much reading as possible. If this is done properly, you would be pushing hard to say there will be a problem. Popular opinion can sometimes mean the issue is distorted, and governments then find it hard to get their point of view over. It is an important issue and it needs to be looked at from the review point of view.
I have been a supporter of the Ord River as well. Sometimes we have to be careful we do not emphasise the Ord too much from the point of view of advantages to the Northern Territory. It will be good because it will develop jobs in the Northern Territory. There is no doubt about that. However, because we have a line going down the centre between Western Australia and the Northern Territory, the reality is that people live and rely on a Western Australian town, Kununurra, and more than likely will use a Western Australian port.
We are part of Australia, and we sometimes need to think outside the Territory. It is an argument I have used about a certain nuclear waste facility in the Northern Territory. Sometimes we have to think of us as Australians, rather than get so parochial that it is only just about the Territory. The Ord is a classic example. The Ord is part of a scheme that will develop the north and hopefully set some examples for other parts of the Territory to be developed. If anyone has been near the Negri which feeds into Lake Argyle, you will see an enormous river on very similar soils to those found in the Ord River. I do not think you call them cracking clay, but they are similar ...
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! I move that the member for Nelson be granted an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Katherine.
I have always said the development of the Northern Territory will rely on the good mapping of soils, the transport infrastructure that is required and the markets. You have to have a market otherwise it is no good growing anything. You need the skills, the labour force and the right climate. All of those things are part of the development.
Sometimes people can simplify it and say smooth words to say this is the Territory we are going to develop. You need to keep your feet on the ground and look at the reality. There have been many plans over many years to develop the Northern Territory. I first came to the Territory in 1970. I drove past the remains of Tipperary Station’s failed sorghum scheme, Scott Creek, Willaroo, Humpty Doo – the rice.
I went to the launch of the rice trails recently and listened to some of the original farmers talk about some of the issues, many of which were simply because of lack of knowledge. That is something we should not have today. We should have the knowledge to do things right when it comes to development.
The minister spoke about water harvesting. There is much argy-bargy, and you will have those triangle signs, ‘Don’t Dam the Daly’ and that type of stuff. If I take myself away from all of those political, sometimes hysterical, phrases, the reality is that many years ago there were plans to dam the Daly River at Mount Nancar which would be a great waste of time and effort because it would flood such an area. First of all, you would probably destroy some of the good agricultural land. It would be a flat, vast expanse of water, most of which would evaporate and would serve what purpose? I do not know! Those were the days when you had Tipperary and Willaroo Stations and those failures we have had.
We need to be clever. The ministers talk about water harvesting. I have always said there should also be the opportunity to look at small dams upstream on the upper catchments where you could combine a series of small dams to provide water. Sometimes, the political debate gets a bit overblown, but the reality is the amount of land in the Daly River catchment suitable for agricultural development is quite small. If you have lived on the Daly – the member for Daly has, and so have I. I pumped water out of the Daly to grow vegetables and have worked on Gary’s side to grow pastures. The reality is there is not a lot of arable land in the Daly region, as much as people think the whole place will be cleared. It is an enormous catchment and much of it is unsuitable for cleared agriculture. The Douglas Daly has potential. In fact, in some ways the lower Daly has less potential simply because when the Daly River floods everything is washed away. It has potential in the Dry Season for mangoes, tree crops and maybe forestry. However, the lower part of the Daly, when it floods that big piece of country, causes damage. Part of that damage is because we cleared some of the land.
I agree water harvesting needs to be looked at. There needs to much more research and development. How do you hold enough water you harvest in the Wet Season to supply enough water to develop horticulture and agriculture right through the Dry Season? You have to keep the water in the dam and stop evaporation, and that is not simple. Minister, you are spot on that they are the areas we need to look at.
I am interested to know when this review will start and who will be involved in it. If we are to have a review, will there be a set of guidelines? The minister included a range of things and mentioned it twice. Once, right at the end, he talked about establishing a sound legislative base, developing an overarching water policy, implementing an appropriate water allocation and water licencing framework, and ensuring the scientific monitoring and research needed to provide an evidence base is undertaken. He also mentioned other matters that will be taken into account which are also important. He talked about a Northern Territory water policy as well, and that all needs to be part of the review.
Two issues need to be looked at as well. Under the Water Act there has been some controversy. Members here over the last few years would know there was flooding in the rural area at Herbert in relation to a lagoon. The government at the time allowed that lagoon to be pumped until it was nearly dry. I complained about that and said you cannot pump a lagoon dry; you cannot even drain it because it is a waterway and it would need planning approval. The department said, ‘No, that is not a waterway’. A question was asked at the Estimates Committee, ‘What is a waterway?’ They said, ‘We will tell you which waterways in Litchfield Shire are waterways’.
About six months later they came back with a list of what they said were waterways. It all depended on the definition, which basically said if you have a water body and it has a defined outlet and inlet, it is a waterway. Anyone who knows lagoons in the rural area knows in many cases they do not have a defined in and out; the water flows across the land into the next low area. That is an area in the Water Act I hope the minister looks to redefine so areas like those lagoons are protected, otherwise, under the existing interpretation, they could be drained.
Another area is the Howard East bore field. The Howard East management group has not had a meeting for nearly two years – it might be over two years now – and I would like to know if the minister will take into account many of the things the management board looked at. The minister talked about the lack of science, and the amount of water removed by domestic, commercial and horticultural bores. Much of that information we already have, but I would like to know where the government is heading in relation to the Howard East bore field.
There has been talk about metering bores. The government would be on a hot potato if it said today it will charge people for water. I have memories of one of the biggest meetings ever in the rural area when a previous government tried to do that. However, it needs to look at the issue through science. It needs to give people who live in that area the results of that science. It needs to ensure it brings the people in the rural area along with any decisions it makes, otherwise it will end up not making decisions that can be put in place because people will just ignore them. You have to bring the community along if you are going to make decisions about the future of water resources in the Howard East bore field.
The Northern Territory Planning Commission, obviously, is looking at the rural area as a possible area for development. Those issues about the availability of water would keep some restraint on the development of that part of the Litchfield Council area.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement. As I said, I do not agree with the water allocations or the manner in which the water allocations were given. I am not against water allocations, but just because we have a large amount of water is not a reason for giving plenty of it away. We need to give it out based on science and on proof the person asking for the water has the ability to use it. We need to do that in a planned and sensible way based on the science. That is a far better way to do it.
Once again, I thank the minister for this statement which is an important statement. It is a pity there is so much in it that we cannot debate it a bit longer. However, I am interested to hear when this review will start from a public point of view, how will we know when it is starting and who will be able to be involved in the review.
Ms LEE (Arnhem): Mr Deputy Speaker, I also make a contribution to this debate. I will not stand here and throw whips all over the place, some of us are too good for that. I will read exactly what I have.
The issue of water resources in the Northern Territory in driving development is a complex matter to all, not only the pastoralists, but also Indigenous people in the Northern Territory. We have an opportunity to make sure the development, using our natural resources and water, is sustainable. In the Northern Territory, ground water accounts for around 90% of all water sources. The Territory’s main industries of pastoralism, tourism, horticulture, and mining mostly rely on ground water sources.
The NT Water Act allows for integrated agriculture and horticultural and consumptive usage, so basically everybody gets to use the water around here, even the people in towns, service stations – everybody has to use water. Water has to go somewhere; it cannot just sit in the ground.
It is also important that this government’s approach for the management of the Territory water resources is open to all users, which includes Indigenous people. It is especially important and appropriate that strategic Indigenous reserves be considered in the water allocation plans. I will elaborate on that. Indigenous people, with the background, education and understanding of water resources and the acts around the Northern Territory should have a seat at the table so they can have their say, instead of everybody else having a say on behalf of them. Let them have a say. That could be people who have always voted Labor, or people who voted Liberal. They could be Independents, The Greens, or anybody, as long as they have a say at the table.
My constituents need to have a well-mapped-out plan with this government. This will be a requirement for all Indigenous stakeholders within the Territory, considering the area of Aboriginal land which exists in the Northern Territory. This will ensure the ability for Indigenous landowners to undertake commercial operations is not compromised.
Since coming to government, we have had requests from a few communities, and I name one in my electorate, Ngukurr. Ngukurr wants to do everything. They want to start farming and have their own business. Not everyone wants to get into mining, so they are looking at other options. They are looking at how they can expand and grow their own community. Looking at the stats, Ngukurr is a growing population and is considered to be one of the growth towns. They have a really good understanding of that and they want to move forward. In the past they could not, because there was red tape everywhere.
They were not given an option to even consider using water, doing farming on their own land, or any such thing. They told me that. They said they never had the opportunity. Now, we have the right vision, have the right words, and want to move the people forward. I said, ‘That is what this government is about’. We want to move forward, not only everybody else, not just the pastoralists, but the Indigenous people. Not just the towns and the cities. I know Darwin is screaming for water because of the water restriction, but Indigenous people need to jump on the right boat and get on the ship right now. That is what we need to do.
We really need to look into this, and that is probably changing the act and looking at federal legislation where we actually stand with this. Go back to lobbying again. Are the former members from the other side of the table doing the lobbying about giving Indigenous people the rights to own the water? If you look at the native title in the Land Rights Act, Indigenous people only have rights to the land on top. The natural resources under that are under the Crown. It is in the National Library of Australia; you would know that if you look at the two acts, the Native Title Act and the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. It is not worth having all this assumption about being an Aboriginal saviour if you do not understand those two acts and what rights we have. Then you can speak on our behalf, for the people.
Our water is combined with culture, land and everything else. At Mataranka alone, scientists discovered two more springs that had never been discovered until recently, but you are only talking about one spring. They have no idea. They cannot make an assumption about how much water is under the water table because two other springs were discovered recently. Everybody is jumping up and down about one spring. They do not know which direction that spring is going or where it is coming out; whether it comes out in Western Australia or Queensland.
This government’s aim is to move forward and move our people with us to give them the right to get out there farming and have the same aspirations as any other Australian. This will require a long-term strategic approach to water management and licence allocation because we cannot have one mob going up and the Indigenous people just slowly coming up. We have to keep it balanced. You talk about moving Indigenous people forward. Well, speak in the middle about Indigenous people because it is pretty sensitive to the mob out there. If they sat in this gallery and listened to half of the stuff everybody has to say about what should be happening in Indigenous communities, most of them would be disgusted, because they do not like other people speaking up for what they do not believe in. Speak in the middle if you want to speak for Indigenous people.
We need to move them up on the same level, and we have not been doing that. All we have been worried about is building everything else around them and they are still stuck down the bottom. We need to move them together. Education is the poorest thing in the remote communities; it has failed dramatically. There are only a few Indigenous people who live in town who are good at administration. How are they going to run the farm out in the bush? They still need support in the administration, so education still comes under that. We still have to get them trained up in that matter.
It is true what the member for Nelson just said. Has anybody really considered that? You go into the communities, not everybody can speak English well. English was not my first language. Was it yours, member for Arafura? Was it yours, member for Namatjira? Exactly. We learnt at school; we were not born and raised with English. That is your language, we have our own ...
Ms Fyles: Do not cut the teachers.
Ms LEE: Oh, yes, here we go, back to the teachers again, as the member for Nightcliff says. She is so negative about this water allocation and everything else. I meet with the same people you meet, so I get two sides of the information, not only the briefing from the minister, but the briefing from outside this building.
This will promote sustainable water resource management in the Territory. Indigenous Territorians need this assurance in order to play a central role in economic development in the Northern Territory.
In conclusion, this will form a key plank for the development of the regions of the Northern Territory and will give real meaning to our government policy of Framing the Future.
I go back to the cap the member for Barkly was going off about. I took note of what the minister, the member for Katherine, said. The people advised the committee the cap be taken off. What more can you ask for? Are you telling these people they cannot take the cap off because scientifically and environmentally it is not right?
In one part you were talking about the rights of Indigenous people, and the next minute you were saying, ‘No, the advice you have given to the minister is wrong’. Where are you coming from? I cannot understand. You are always saying two things at once. It is confusing this House, and it is mainly confusing me. Eventually, you will be confusing the people outside this House if they have to listen to this for the rest of their lives.
Speak on what you know best; do not try to deliberate on Aboriginal people you do not know. You went to school with the mob here in Darwin. They are not the same as the mob out bush. The mob in town is not the same as the mob out in whoop-whoop; we are all different. Everyone has a judgment on Indigenous affairs, especially in this House. The biggest argument comes from the opposition ...
Mr Westra van Holthe: Most of them would not have a clue.
Ms LEE: Most of them do not have a clue. They are talking about the springs and everything else. Well, guess what? In the community I grew up in, we have our own spring which fills up our own water tank, and we have lived like that since I was born, nearly 30 years. They are not complaining about the Tindall aquifer.
I go back to what the Opposition Leader said the other day, ‘Have you discussed it with the traditional owners? I have been talking to the traditional owners.’ What traditional owners has she been talking to around Katherine? I have not seen her around Katherine. What traditional owners? Seriously! I am one of them. I go back all the way to East Arnhem Land, that is my traditional country, and back up north to my mother’s side. I would like to know who. Everything you say out there in the bush comes back directly to me. Do you people realise that? I am not holding that against you. By all means do it, because you are just killing yourselves.
It is not hurting me, because they know me. They have known me since the minute I was born. If they did not know me they would not have voted for me. I broke the ice on this one. I cut the little red ribbon they had in Arnhem Land, the first Liberal to win that seat. All of you hate me, I can see it in your eyes. Isn’t it lovely?
Mr Deputy Speaker, that is my little contribution to the House.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Land Resource Management): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will now close this debate on the water statement.
First, I counted the contributions from each side of the House. It is disappointing – correct me if I am wrong – but there was only one member of the opposition who stood to speak on this statement ...
Ms Anderson: Shame!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Shame! It is absolutely shameful to have only one member of the opposition speak on this very important topic.
There is no doubt, which was acknowledged by the member for Nightcliff, that water is the most precious resource we have in the Northern Territory. Yet, the lack of interest shown by the opposition in this statement and what the member for Nightcliff described as the most precious resource of the Northern Territory, is beyond belief. I am disappointed only one member …
Mr Vowles interjecting.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: What was that? You want to take me outside, member for Johnston? Did you say that again? I want to check.
Mr Vowles interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A bit of order!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Just checking ...
Mr Giles: He cannot debate …
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: No, so he has to take you outside.
It was disappointing there was only one contribution from the other side. We had four members from this side contribute to the debate besides me, with a very well-thought through and reasoned contribution by the member for Nelson. I appreciate his comments.
Let me touch on a few of the things that were raised. I will deal with the member for Nelson’s issues raised during his contribution because they deserve to be answered. I will do my best to deal with those now. Not necessarily in this order, he mentioned the review of the Water Act and water planning as a whole across the Northern Territory.
The review is happening now and is in its early stages. The construction of a water policy, which is something new for the Northern Territory, will commence once we have a water directorate. The water directorate will sit within the Department of Land Resource Management and high-level officers will be working on high-level strategic and policy advice to the minister. That is coming. I can assure you the community will be well and truly brought along in that process.
I paraphrase what the member for Nelson mentioned, that water should be allocated according to what is needed, not necessarily what is wanted. Let me respond by saying there is an apparent misunderstanding, or a lack of understanding, of the commercialisation of agriculture and water by the opposition and, from the member for Nelson’s statement, apparently him also. First, we have, in the new regime of water licensing, a use it or lose it type policy whereby water will be allocated, but if it is not used in adherence with the development plan submitted with the water licence application, that water may well be pared back and taken off a licensee.
However, I point out to members in this House that the commercialisation of agriculture in the Northern Territory requires a number of things. One of those things is land. The second thing is a capacity of the landowner to do the job, so some expertise, experience and knowledge. Water is the other thing.
It is not sufficient to say you have a certain amount of water; you need to commercialise that with lending institutions to develop your property in the way you intend to. In most cases it requires a landowner to go to a financial institution and borrow money. You cannot borrow money for a project unless you have all the requisite parts of an agricultural development, including water. You cannot put X amount of gigalitres on a block of land and say, ‘Show the bank, there it is’. You must show them a licence to extract it. It is necessary to issue water licences that may be beyond what is needed, as the member for Nelson said, to obtain the requisite finance to be able to proceed with economic development in the agricultural sector.
The member for Nelson also talked about water in relation to towns and cities and the domestic supply. He mentioned the Warrai dam, the Darwin River Dam, which can still be further augmented, and the Manton Dam, which is a possibility if the Darwin water supply demands it. There is also a further site: the Adelaide River off-stream storage site, which is separate to the Warrai dam. Power and Water and the Department of Land Resource Management are taking a very long-term and strategic approach to dealing with issues around the future of Darwin’s water supply.
Of course, Katherine sits in an area that is covered by the allocation plan, so we are minding our ‘p’s and ‘q’s there. I have talked about Alice Springs. The reason we were able to lift the cap in relation to the Roe Creek bore field there was because of the Water Smart initiative that has been undertaken over a number of years and the drop in water usage by Alice Springs residents, which means their supplies are more sustainable than they were.
Fracking was also raised by the member for Nelson. I do not want to go too much into fracking because that is a whole other discussion. However, he said we should not ignore the greenies. I agree that we should not ignore them. He also said, as a government, we have a responsibility to regulate properly around this issue and ensure we take water into consideration. I agree with that also. I point out that sitting alongside the responsibilities government has, the greenies, as we call them, the Environment Centre of the Northern Territory, also has a responsibility, which is not to perpetuate mistruths and lies about the practice of fracking, or horizontal stimulation as it is called in the industry ...
Mr Giles: Horizontal stimulation?
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: That is what they call it, Chief Minister, horizontal stimulation.
Mr Giles: I think you made the member for Nhulunbuy blush.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Goodness me!
Ms Walker: It does not take much to make me blush, shrinking violet that I am!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: It is hard to ignore that. I will ignore the raised eyebrows from the member for Nhulunbuy; that was a bit disconcerting, you are a married woman.
Anyway, the Environment Centre of the NT also has a responsibility to tell the truth. They are stirring up a great deal of trouble misrepresenting the practices around unconventional gas in the Northern Territory to suit their own purposes. They, indeed, also have some responsibilities.
The member for Nelson also pointed out that the member for Daly had shown some support for the strategic Indigenous reserve. Also, from what the member for Arnhem said, there is some support from her quarter as well. I guess that is the beauty of being in conservative politics; you are entitled to have your own view. If you were in the Labor Party and you tried to espouse a view that was different from the party line, you would be hung, drawn, and quartered, as we have seen before in the Northern Territory Labor Party. We encourage independent thought on this side of the House; that is what sparks good debate.
I will point out, even though I pointed it out in the statement, that the members for Arnhem, Daly, Stuart and Arafura were very strident in their views in relation to the review of the strategic Indigenous reserve. It is the work they did representing their constituents that brought about my and government’s position on a review of strategic Indigenous reserves over the next few years. I am going to talk about SIR later. Hopefully, I will have a few more minutes.
I thank the other members from this side of the House who spoke. The Chief Minister gave a great deal of support to this statement, and for that I say thank you. Of course, the members for Namatjira and Arnhem also supported this statement. I also thank the member for Daly who was impassioned and probably a little angry in his response, given the ill-informed and ignorant contribution by the member for Nightcliff. He is entitled to have those views, given his experience with water planning through the Daly River Management Advisory Committee.
I will pause for a moment, as I thought I could hear a dog whistle. That is what is coming from the opposition. It is a dog whistle to the Aboriginal people, showing some sort of famed support for this position around strategic Indigenous reserves and is really quite shallow and disgraceful conduct from the opposition. It certainly does not (a) go towards a good debate, or (b) focus on the issues facing Indigenous people right now.
The member for Nightcliff talked about a number of things. It is very interesting to note that not once – and the member for Nightcliff has been a member of parliament for a bit over a year now – has she sought a briefing from my office or the department on anything to do with water resources.
I have an advantage being the minister, in that I have a department to support me and provide me with information. However, the opposition members also have an opportunity to inform themselves. Let me tell you, members of the opposition, you have a responsibility to yourselves and to your constituents to ensure you are fully informed, so when you come into this House you can contribute in a debate in a way that is sensible, intelligent, and meaningful.
Member for Nightcliff, your contribution was none of those things, and I am extremely disappointed, once again, that you have chosen to go down this path. Your contribution today was all hearsay and innuendo, based on adopting third-party comment when it was convenient for you to do so. You obviously did not read the whole statement, and I will come to that in a moment. Your debate was based entirely on emotion and trying to pull on the emotive heart strings of Indigenous people around the Territory. I can tell you that by doing that you are doing them a great disservice.
You obviously do not understand agriculture and the commercialisation of agriculture in the Northern Territory, nor do you understand the environment. You certainly do not understand water planning in the context of the Northern Territory ...
Ms Walker: But she knows a rort when she sees one.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I will pick up on the interjection by the member for Nhulunbuy ...
Ms Walker: Nhulunbuy, a hard vowel sound.
Mr Giles: Null and void, not on board.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Null and void, not on board, all of those.
We have done this up hill and down dale, and the suggestion that there has been any sort of rort or ministerial influence from me – I know she is referring to the Mataranka water licence – is absolutely absurd. You can take that to the bank with you, members for Nhulunbuy and Nightcliff, because it is just not true. Anyway, I digress a little.
It became quite evident that you had not read the statement when you started talking about your lack of understanding of off-stream storage. Off-stream storage is fairly well described in the statement. I do not quite get why you could not understand what is simple and clear in the statement. You clearly did not read it properly.
You said a new water body was announced today, the Northern Territory Catchments Advisory Committee. That was announced by me before. Clearly you have not been listening. I have the terms of reference now, which I am starting to go through, and we are working through that process. It would pay you, member for Nightcliff, to be a little more switched on to what is happening in your shadow portfolio area.
You referred to Alice Springs and the Roe Creek bore field, the lifting of the cap, and you made some comments like, ‘What if there are changes to climate or rainfall?’ Again, it clearly shows you have not read the statement because in that statement, which I wrote, and when I read it, I read it verbatim, I mentioned section 34 of the Water Act, which deals with all of those things.
What I picked up today from the opposition is something I guess I already knew but it is another manifestation of it: that the reason the Northern Territory is in this position now is because for the last 11 years, from 2001 to 2012, this wonderful jurisdiction, this beautiful place to live, had a constipated government. You were so held to ransom by minority groups that you did not have the political courage or will to make any hard decisions about anything.
Let us face it, 75 water licences were not dealt with under your government. The member for Daly talked about other things that your government had not done. I have no need to repeat those things, but that is the type of government the Northern Territory had from 2001 to 2012.
I can assure the people of the Northern Territory listening to this broadcast that if you should ever go back to considering a Labor government in the Northern Territory again, that is what you will get: another constipated government that has no courage. Not only that, you will get a government that supports a lifelong miserable existence for Aboriginal people.
On 25 August last year, you lot were tossed out because Aboriginal people realised that under Labor policies and government they were getting nowhere. They were still where they were 11 or 12 years ago. I will even say they are worse off now than they were 40 years ago when welfare came in as it is currently. That is probably one of the biggest reasons we have not seen substantial amounts of Indigenous development ...
Mrs LAMBLEY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I know we have talked about it here before and I am going to say it again, welfare has held Aboriginal people back. It has created a malaise. It has created a false sense of security that those people can sit around and do nothing and the government will pick up the bill. It has prevented them from attaining and seeking any impetus to develop economically.
You claim that somehow a strategic Indigenous reserve will solve those problems. It will not because if you warehouse water for the next five, 10, 20, 40 years, if you put aside a strategic Indigenous reserve for Lord knows how long – I would love to hear from the opposition their plans around a strategic Indigenous reserve and how long they think water should stay unallocated so, maybe one day, Indigenous people can grab hold of some of that water and do some development.
What I am doing by removing the strategic Indigenous reserve, notwithstanding the review of the policy, is providing an incentive and some impetus for Indigenous people who might become farmers to be engaged with the process. That is all we are trying to do. We are encouraging people to get off welfare and find alternatives. Under Labor’s policy you would find warehousing of water with no impetus provided for Aboriginal people to develop economically. Think about that. Do we want to provide an environment where people can sit down and be paid by the government, or one where people want jobs, economic development for themselves, our children, their children, and their grandchildren?
I had the pleasure yesterday of going to the port to celebrate the first shipment of Sherwin Iron’s iron ore to China. It was heartening to see a number of Indigenous people from Ngukurr and the Roper River region there. I made the observation that we were on Larrakia land, but I also made the observation that some land that belonged to the Roper River Indigenous people was on that boat, and that was symbolic of the capacity of that land to develop an economy and make money. Who would not want that for their people? How many times have you heard senior Indigenous people say, ‘We are land rich but dirt poor’? How many times? I have heard it tons of times. Do you know why? Because there is no economic development on that land, or very little. That is why those senior Indigenous people will say that, because they want to see an economy grow.
In the case of mining, some iron ore leaving traditional lands of the Roper people will go to China making them money, turning that land into something that provides economic viability. Likewise, agriculture development can do the same thing. It was great to hear the member for Arnhem talk about the people of Ngukurr who want to get agricultural developments up and running. That is fantastic. However, when will they is the question in my mind. Under this government’s policy, we will encourage them and provide some impetus for them to start that process now because we want them to get up. We do not want them to sit down anymore, we want them to get up. The Labor Party policy would much rather see them sitting down for the next 30 or 40 years waiting for something to happen. Think about that.
That is the context in which an SIR, in my view, is bad policy. I do not know if Indigenous organisations like NAILSMA are doing their people any favours by saying, ‘It is okay to sit around for the next 10, 20, 30, 40 years, the water will be there for you whenever you feel like developing some economy around it’. They are doing their people an enormous disservice. I am not picking on NAILSMA, but NAILSMA is one Indigenous organisation – there would be others – which should be doing everything it its power to get its people up.
This government is about creating economic development on that basis. I told the National Water Commission that several months ago when I met with them for dinner. I said the current policies, welfare and those types of things have created a malaise for Indigenous people. There is no sense of urgency and no sense of ‘let us get on and get this done’. The current sense is, ‘We can just sit around and wait until the cows come home, the government will pick up the tab and pay us welfare until that time’. What is wrong with getting this economy for Aboriginal people developed now?
It disappoints me to hear so much consternation around the strategic Indigenous reserve. Have a think about it from that perspective. Why would we not be encouraging people to get up now? The policy of SIR does not do that. This is what I explained to my backbench colleagues when we had this discussion about SIR before. They said they want to review the policy. I said that was fine, but at the same time I espoused my views on why we should not have an SIR. That was largely the reason I gave: we want to encourage people. That is what government should be doing, not putting policy in place and having a policy platform that says it is okay to sit down. It is not good enough.
Aboriginal people deserve better than that; they are a proud race. I know some of those old fellows and old ladies. I have been around for a while in the Territory, about 30 years. I know many of those old people; they are proud people. Or they were proud when they had jobs, when they were looking after their houses, when their kids were going to school. However, much of that pride has gone because of that creeping malaise that has come over Aboriginal Australia. That is not to say that all Aboriginal people are caught up in the malaise, because there are some very high-profile people – indeed, we have members of parliament who are Indigenous – who are very well-educated people with good jobs. However, when you look across the Northern Territory and go to communities like Wadeye, Lajamanu, Yuendumu, Papunya, Santa Teresa, and Alpurrurulam, there are many people who are looking for opportunity. They want to be proud once again.
Unfortunately, the policy settings of governments, or would-be governments like the Labor Party, would prefer to keep them down. I said that to the Prime Minister a number of years ago in the context of some things Warren Snowdon said. As far as the Labor Party is concerned, it is far better to keep the Aboriginal people down than to pretend to champion their cause to garner votes ...
Mr Giles: Who said that?
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I said that to the Prime Minister, but it was in the context of some things Warren Snowdon said at the 20th anniversary of the hand back of Nitmiluk Gorge to the local Jawoyn people.
I guess that is why there was a revolt by Aboriginal people on 25 August 2012. The Labor Party was unceremoniously swept from power because you have done nothing for Aboriginal people. When I hear your views on the strategic Indigenous reserve – that is why, because the blackfellas are awake to you. They know, they understand ...
Ms Walker: Blackfellas, that is a bit offensive.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I am entitled to call them that. I have been around the Territory for 30 years and many of them are my friends, Lynne.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I might leave it there. I am going to run out of time for the second time. Thank you to those who contributed to the debate, particularly on this side of the House, and also the member for Nelson. I am sure water will be a topic of much discussion for years to come.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
TABLED PAPER
Remuneration Tribunal Report on the Entitlements of Assembly Members and Determination No 1 of 2013
Remuneration Tribunal Report on the Entitlements of Assembly Members and Determination No 1 of 2013
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, I table the Remuneration Tribunal Report on the Entitlements of Assembly Members and Determination No 1 of 2013.
The Remuneration Tribunal has recently undertaken its annual review of entitlements of members of the Assembly, and I am pleased to table in the House the tribunal’s 2013 report and determination.
The determination is scheduled to take effect from 1 January 2014, subject to any disallowance motion from this House. Key features of the 2013 Remuneration Tribunal Determination are as follows.
Definitions: the definition of office holder has been amended to accord with the definition of the term of this act. This extends the application of determining the RTD beyond the Speaker, ministers, Leader of the Opposition and Deputy Leader of the Opposition to include the holder of any other office in the Assembly.
Electorate allowances: electorate allowances have been increased by 2.4%, being the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for the 12 months ending June 2013. All other allowances have been similarly increased where appropriate.
Additional assistance, electorate staffing: the provision for part-time assistance in electorate offices has been extended from six to eight hours per week.
An allowance in lieu of vehicle: for those members who have opted to take an annual allowance in lieu of a government-provided motor vehicle, the determination has increased this allowance to $24 504 per annum. The extra allowance takes into account usage for Assembly purposes in addition to electorate purposes, and will avoid the need for the administrative work associated with mileage claims.
Travelling allowances: rates of travelling allowance have been adjusted based on the amounts published by the Australian Taxation Office. The Darwin rate for other than commercial accommodation has been set at $350 per day which recognises the higher Darwin rental market, and that the amount for meals and incidentals has not been adjusted for a number of years.
Travel for spouses and nominees: the travel entitlement for spouses or nominees under clause 3.13, Travel to and from official government assembly or vice regal functions under certain conditions, had been inadvertently omitted from the 2012 determination and has now been reinstated.
Travel for ministers and the Leader of the Opposition: acknowledgement of the general travel entitlement for ministers and the Leader of the Opposition has also been omitted from the 2012 determination. This has been reversed in a new clause 3.2 by way of a statement that travel by these office holders and their spouses, nominees or children, in addition to the travel entitlements contained in the determination, is a matter for the government.
Communications: a Smart phone or iPhone has been provided for electorate officers to enable better communication between the member and his or her electorate officer.
In addition to the changes in the determination, the tribunal in its report commented there had been an intention to review the provision of four-wheel-drive vehicles for the members for Katherine and Nelson as part of the 2013 inquiry. However, the tribunal decided not to undertake this review as it will conduct a wider review on the provisions or otherwise of motor vehicles at its next inquiry. The review will investigate the types of vehicles required for urban, semi-rural and rural electorates, and the rates of allowances for those opting for an allowance in lieu of a vehicle.
The tribunal again this year reiterated its view that the legislation should be amended to remove the linkage between increases in NT Public Service wages and increases to Assembly member wages, and that the tribunal be provided with the power to set basic salary and additional salary of office. The government has made no decision about this recommendation of the tribunal, however, will give the proposal due consideration.
REORDER OF ROUTINE OF BUSINESS
Mrs LAMBLEY (Acting Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 89, I move that Government Business Order of the Day No 18 be called on now, and Government Business Order of the Day No 14 be subsequently considered.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Note Statement – Mining in the Territory
Note Statement – Mining in the Territory
Continued from 8 October 2013.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for Mines and Energy for his statement. Mining has been a key priority for this government.
The first Australia China Minerals Investment Summit was held here in May of this year, followed by the Katherine Regional Mining and Exploration Forum held in June. The past month has seen intense activity as The Mining Territory Conference 2013 and the South East Asia Australia Offshore Conference, SEAAOC, attracted record exhibitor numbers and attendance. The minister and I attended the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association Onshore Gas Conference in Adelaide just last week.
A great deal of work has been done since the County Liberal government came to office. We came to office to provide a topical overview of the Territory for investors to outline the exploration prospects, to present mineral potential opportunities, to discuss strategies for production and export, and advise about the specific requirements and responsibilities of the Northern Territory’s resource industry.
The fact is the Northern Territory is highly prospective. We are open for business and we encourage and support investment. Our blueprint, entitled Framing the Future, matches a vision of an economy built on exports and the needs of our trading partners, with the objective of an economy that unlocks the potential and builds our regions. This is a consistent message and is in step with the federal Coalition’s message out of Canberra with its emphasis on infrastructure and the focus on developing northern Australia.
The Territory’s building blocks include engagement in partnership with Indigenous landowners, infrastructure investment, initiatives such as Creating Opportunities Resource Exploration, or CORE, with our goal to translate exploration potential into real product for export.
Business at the Port of Darwin is increasing as new mining projects come online, thanks to the Country Liberals government. In the year to June 2013, nearly 4.3 million tonnes was transhipped at East Arm Wharf, up more than 800 000 tonnes on the previous year. This was mainly due to dry bulk exports, especially iron ore which increased by 570 000 tonnes.
The Minister for Mines and Energy mentioned the Roper region during his statement. The region is currently experiencing an unprecedented level of economic activity that would never have been possible under a poor-performing, debt-ridden Labor government. It included, this week, the first shipment of iron ore from Sherwin Iron for export to China, something I know the minister was extremely proud of. The Roper River mine is scheduled to move into full production next year with up to 300 employed when fully operational.
I will talk again about Western Desert resources, the flagship $200m project, 60 km south of Ngukurr and 50 km from Bing Bong Port on the Gulf of Carpentaria. This Roper Bar project involves the construction of an open pit operation with 1.5 million tonnes of capacity in the initial stages, which will increase to three million tonnes a year by the third year of operation.
These demonstrate that the Northern Territory has large-scale mineral resources and we will continue to fight to get them out of the ground. We support economic development and business creation and jobs. Resources in that zone of mineral resources also include zinc, bauxite, phosphate, manganese and gold.
Arafura Resources has executed a memorandum of understanding with Chinese rare earths provider Shenghe Resources Holding Company to jointly develop the Nolans rare earth project, an exciting project about 130 km north of Alice Springs. Mithril Resources is focused on copper exploration. TNG, as I mentioned earlier today, is moving ahead with its plans for its Mount Peake strategic metals project 235 km northwest of Alice Springs. I awarded that major project status on 25 September 2013. At the time, TNG’s managing director, Paul Burton, summed up the significance of this announcement when he said in his media release:
- Mount Peake is a large, long-life project that will bring a range of important benefits to the Northern Territory, both through its construction and during production.
These include employment, training opportunities, royalties and benefits to Indigenous communities in the region.
A history of long-term projects in the Territory has proved our commitment is not just a hollow promise. For example, on 19 September 2013 I officially opened the $220m brine concentrator at Energy Resources of Australia’s Ranger Mine. ERA’s history, in step with the Mirrar traditional owners, and continued investment is the economic driver for the Jabiru township and region, bringing jobs and skills. It has made possible joint initiatives between ERA and the Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation, including the new residential college.
We know how critical a mining operation is to an adjoining community. That is why such strenuous efforts have been put into the gas to Gove project. The Northern Territory government has put forward a proposal for the provision of up to 175 PJ of our own gas. As part of that support, we will work with Rio Tinto to encourage and facilitate new gas sources being brought into production as soon as possible to provide the long-term energy security the refinery needs.
The federal government has again confirmed its support for financing and construction of the gas pipeline from Katherine to Gove. They have also announced, through minister Ian Macfarlane, he believes they have found the required gas to completely fulfil Rio Tinto’s requirements.
Rio Tinto’s future about its Gove operations is a commitment that remains outstanding: the commitment all the community needs to hear. We have been working diligently on securing the long-term future of the East Arnhem region. It is a pity the member for Nhulunbuy does not support these claims and only antagonises the situation, leaves the community ill-informed and seeks to drive Rio Tinto out of town.
Earlier this year, we heard claims that Australia’s resources boom was over, that China’s slowdown was curbing demand and that the unprecedented prices would come down. The reality is the huge numbers of people in the nation to the north of us are beginning to demand more necessities such as minerals, energy and food, and, in particular, commodities such as iron ore, copper, coal, aluminium, gas, grain and protein. The Northern Territory and northern Australia is in an enormously strong position, much to Labor’s discredit, to respond as Australia’s economy demonstrates increased demand and our production ramps up to service export markets.
The Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics, BREE, noted in the September 2013 Resources Energy Quarterly that the outlook for Australia’s mineral and energy exports remains positive. China’s GDP growth is assumed to recover slightly to 7.6% in 2014, again supported primarily by capital expenditure, and, to 2018, China’s imports are projected to grow at an average rate of around 5% per year. I note China simply as one example.
During September’s NT Resources Week we promoted investment opportunities to key players from China to Indonesia. Also in September we saw interest in the Territory’s iron ore project from visiting Vietnamese investors, and a number of rare earth minerals projects were promoted to Taiwanese officials.
Later this month I will lead a trade delegation investment mission to Japan, China and Vietnam. While my trip will promote the full range of investment and trade opportunities across the Northern Territory’s multilevel economy, one of the highlights of this mission will be to open a minerals and energy investment seminar in Tokyo where Territory projects will be showcased to Japanese investors. My trip to Japan, China and Vietnam will open doors and pave the way for the targeted investment meetings that will take place in late October and early November.
At that time, the Minister for Mines and Energy will lead a follow-up investment delegation comprising Territory exploration companies seeking investors for their projects. That follow-up delegation will participate in a number of promotional seminars, as well as prearranged meetings with potential investors such as the major Japanese trading houses and Chinese companies with a need for the minerals the Territory has in abundance. I note the minister will hold a number of high-level meetings with government officials in China, designed to open up new opportunities for agricultural trade and investment between China and the Northern Territory, in his role as the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries as well.
My primary objective is to lead a government that develops: a multilevel economy that leverages new investment, including opportunities for all the people in our regions; a proven record in the Northern Territory for reliability, efficiency and responsiveness; and an economy strengthened by new projects and built on strong local businesses. With this government’s commitment to foster a prosperous economy comes a need to actively attract foreign investment into key sectors of the economy such as mining and energy. Foreign investment into the Northern Territory’s mineral and energy exploration projects is crucial for advancing our economy, for creating jobs and for regional development, something Labor simply does not support or promote.
Our task is ongoing and our commitment to lift the profile of the Northern Territory internationally is resolute. This is something that Labor failed over eleven-and-a-half years; they were too scared to get on the plane to promote the Territory and seek the financial investment to grow northern Australia for the long-term benefit of all Territorians.
Madam Speaker, I commend this statement to the House and look forward to working with the Minister for Mines and Energy to ensure we have a long-lasting future in the Northern Territory.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I will now wrap up this debate. First of all, I thank members for their comments in response to this ministerial statement on mining.
As some would be aware, I could not be in the House for some of those remarks yesterday, as I was on East Arm Wharf alongside Sherwin Iron executives and proud traditional owners to witness the very first shipment of iron ore from Sherwin Iron’s Roper mine site which was being loaded for export to China. It was a momentous occasion to be there to see this iron ore being loaded, and a proud day for Sherwin as well as the traditional owners and the Territory.
As I mentioned a short time ago, it was wonderful to see the traditional owners there in support of using their land to create wealth. I was delighted to hear some of them speak yesterday afternoon. They were talking about better education and more job opportunities for their children and grandchildren. That is the sort of thing the Country Liberals government likes to hear.
Talking about that Roper mine, 200 million tonnes of ore from the Roper River mine is expected to pass through East Arm over that project’s 20 year-plus lifespan, hopefully destined for the steel mills of China.
While it was unfortunate I could not be here to hear some of the comments made in response to this mining statement, I have taken the time to read all the remarks in Hansard. For the most part I was disappointed in the standard of comments and the pithy remarks made by those opposite. If I could sum it up in a few words, it was sour grapes from those opposite who are still coming to terms with being in opposition. Tough place to sit, isn’t it? Hopefully, you will be there for a very long time. You were, obviously, trying to rewrite history and view things through rose-coloured glasses.
It has been said in this House before – I might even attribute it to the member for Port Darwin when he said the Labor Party, when they come in this place sometimes, would have you think that prior to 2001 the Northern Territory was a desert – barren wasteland. Then, on the seventh day, the Labor Party was elected and everything was just fine. I tell you, hearing the contributions yesterday you could be forgiven for thinking that is exactly how the Labor Party thinks and what they would like to rewrite history to reflect.
It was very disappointing to hear that. I have always stood in this House and given credit where credit is due, but clearly that benefit was not reciprocated by the opposition.
It is a fact that since coming to government the Country Liberals have made huge progress in cutting red tape and increasing the amount of support offered to the resource and exploration industry, in changing mining regulations to enable the industry to get on and do the job, and by investing and implementing proposals such as the priority zone system. I notice the member for Casuarina made some comments about that yesterday, saying there is no detail. There is no detail because it is still being worked on. I am sure if you take a briefing at the appropriate time you will have all the details filled in, member for Casuarina.
We will put money on the table in supporting development of infrastructure and to improve and speed up approvals for land access and provide whole-of-government assistance for qualifying in order to accelerate exploration activity within those priority zones. That is a sneak peek.
For the member for Casuarina to assert in respect of my quote which was:
… to accelerate exploration … the Country Liberals government will support the development of infrastructure, improve and speed up approvals for land access, and provide whole-of-government assistance for qualifying.
From Hansard, I quote the member for Casuarina who said:
- We are doing that already and have been for the past 11 years.
Not true.
The priority zone approach will be a case management type approach which the former Labor government never considered. This is something quite new, and something you did not do before.
The whole mining industry in the Northern Territory, I can tell you, breathed a collective sigh of relief on 25 August last year when you were voted from power, because you were seen to be a government which was obstructive, difficult to work with, and you engendered a culture in the public service which meant that government approvals became constipated, where everything slowed down and nothing happened in good time.
It has taken me a year-and-a-bit, so far, to work through some of those issues. We are getting there. Testament to that is something you never did before: introduce four-year mine management plans to free up resources and ease the burden on not only the mining companies, but also the very hard-working and dedicated public servants who work in the Department of Mines and Energy, allowing them more time to get into the field and do the things they should be doing in developing relationships with the mining operators, as well as conducting very important site inspections.
I pick up on something else the member for Casuarina mentioned yesterday around CORE, the Creating Opportunity for Research Exploration initiative. When comparing the Country Liberals government’s CORE to the opposition’s Bringing Forward Discovery, the member for Casuarina forgot a key difference between the two programs. While I concede they both encourage declaration and investment in the mining industry in the Northern Territory, the key difference is the Country Liberals’ CORE initiative is fully funded, Kon. It contains a raft of new programs which will provide cutting-edge data to assist exploration ...
Mr Vatskalis: We have already done that.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: You have to remember, because I remember this very well, When we first got into power and I started getting ministerial briefs across my desk, one of those ministerial briefs contained a bunch of unfunded liabilities. Do you know where Bringing Forward Discovery was? It was right in the middle of the pack of unfunded legacy items from the former government. What they had done was fund Bringing Forward Discovery and started the process. Then, guess what? They cut the funding so the program could only continue using the resources of the total Department of Mines and Energy. Not that they increased the budget of Mines and Energy, in fact, quite the opposite was true. That is further borne out when you look at staffing numbers.
During the period – from memory it was 2004 until 2012 – Northern Territory public service numbers rose by 18%. However, during that same period of time, the staffing of what was then the department of Resources, which included Primary Industry and Fisheries, and Mines and Energy, fell by 14%. The former Labor government not only stopped funding very important initiatives within the department, they slashed and burned …
Mr Vatskalis: Rubbish, absolute rubbish!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I pick up that the member for Casuarina said ‘rubbish'. I have the statistics. I did not bring the graph with me, but I have seen the graph because I have presented it in this House before. The public sector went up 18%, the department of Resources went down by 14%. The former government raped and pillaged the department of Resources so they could push it into social programs.
We know that is what the Labor government was all about. They are not interested in economic development, as I said in my previous debate. All they are interested in is letting people on welfare sit down. They are interested in supporting the social service industry. They are not interested in economic development. They would not know it if it jumped up and bit them on the backside. However, I digress.
I also respond to the member for Casuarina’s remarks about the Fraser Institute’s annual survey of mining companies. The Fraser Institute, a Canadian-based research organisation, received responses from over 740 companies on the exploration attractiveness of 96 jurisdictions worldwide. In the 2012-13 survey, the Northern Territory was ranked amongst the world’s leading jurisdictions for our regulatory environment and attractiveness for exploration investment.
In the current mineral potential index, which is a combined measure of industries’ perceptions as to whether a jurisdiction’s mineral potential and its current policy environment encourages or discourages exploration, the NT came 10th in the world. Not only that, it came second in Australia just behind Western Australia. Of course, the member for Casuarina, who is not interested in giving credit where credit is due, did not talk about that part of the statistics. The Northern Territory came first in all the Australian jurisdictions for all criteria relating to the certainty of regulation and a lack of regulatory duplication. The Northern Territory came ninth globally and first in Australia for the level of certainty concerning the administration, interpretation and enforcement of existing regulation.
To reiterate, the Northern Territory was ninth globally and first in Australia for having a lack of regulatory duplication inconsistency, and those results were gleaned post-August 2012 after the former government was gone, gone, gone. This indicates the industry’s perceptions of the certainty and lack of duplication of the mining regulatory environment in the Northern Territory as positive compared to other Australian and global jurisdictions.
The Northern Territory ranked 12th in the world, but fifth in Australia for the quality and accessibility of its geological database. The survey suggests that the mining and exploration industry’s perceptions of the Northern Territory’s attractiveness as an exploration investment destination remain high, both in a global context and relative to the other Australian jurisdictions.
The member for Casuarina was wrong, or he cherry picked just one statistic from the Frazer Institute report that suited his agenda yesterday. He is not into giving credit where credit is due, he would just rather have a crack and try to rewrite history and move on. In puff pastry statements, member for Casuarina, perhaps you should just stick to baking. Go and bake your own puff pastry and do not try to rewrite history.
While I thank all the members for their responses to this statement on mining, on the whole it was disappointing to hear the general negativity coming from the members opposite. However, I have to agree with the member for Barkly, who claimed that the Barkly region is the bread basket of the Northern Territory when it comes to potential for minerals. I agree, and I hope for the sake of Tennant Creek and surrounds that the Barkly region or Tennant Creek mining goes back to the dizzying heights it was many years ago, because that will be good for not only the Northern Territory as a whole, but for Tennant Creek.
As the member of Port Darwin pointed out, Territorians are looking for rational debate. I thank the member for Port Darwin who jumped to his feet yesterday to contribute to this statement. He pointed out that Territorians are looking for rational debate from members of parliament, not the glossing over or rewriting of history and certainly not sour grapes.
I thank the members for Namatjira and Arnhem for their comments. I thank the Chief Minister for his comments this afternoon regarding mining. It is great to have a group of people in government who are all on the same page. When we talk about mining, agriculture, or economic development we are all on the same page, which was not true of the former Labor government. They had many arguments and many diverging views around where their resources should go and how they should support the growth of the Territory.
We know, for example, the former member for Arnhem, Malarndirri McCarthy, was more than happy for money to come out of tourism and go into social programs. She said that during estimates. We know the current Leader of the Opposition, the member for Karama, does not now, and did not then, support development of the Ord. On this side of the House, we support these big major projects that will bring prosperity to the Northern Territory.
Once again, I thank members for their contribution. There is so much happening in the mining sector in the Northern Territory; I carry some regret I cannot talk for too long about the mining activity happening here. If we had the time, the opportunity, and the resources within the department to help with some facts, I could probably deliver a statement in this House that went for two or three hours, because there is so much happening in the mining sector since we came to government. There is a new sense of vibrancy to the Northern Territory; people are interested in coming here.
The Northern Territory, like never before, is on the lips of the world; they are talking about us. They are interested in what we are doing and in our gas developments. They see the Northern Territory as prospective. They see, finally, that the Northern Territory is growing up. It is taking its place as a powerhouse within this wonderful brown land of Australia. They are starting to see us for the potential we have. We are not doing what Labor did, not talking the Territory down, we are talking the Territory up. We are thinking outside the box ...
Mr Chandler: Open for business.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: We are open for business. It is a great little saying, isn’t it, Madam Speaker? I love that – it is open for business. There are many things going on here.
Let us take one example: Arafura Resources. I know Arafura Resources is seriously considering processing their rare earth in the Northern Territory. They had an arrangement to move to Whyalla. One could only guess why they would have even considered Whyalla instead of processing in the Northern Territory. I am going to hazard a guess and say it was the fact that the former government did not provide an environment that gave them certainty and suggested the Northern Territory was open for business. It was probably because the processing of rare earth in the Northern Territory or anywhere else necessarily involves a bit of radioactive material as well. I believe that frightened the former government. They were scared. It goes back to some comments I made earlier about the lack of political courage and will, which was the hallmark of the former Labor government.
However, that is not the case for this government. We are committed to developing the Northern Territory, and we are willing to take the hard decisions to do it. I could have had a much easier path if I had not had to be involved with or supported some tough decisions this government has made. It would be easy, would it not? ‘Let us just sit around and let things bubble along, not make any hard decisions, not worry about things too much. No one will criticise us, but nothing will happen either.’
We are not like that. We are prepared to confront these issues. I have said before that as a government we are keen to see development in the Northern Territory, and there will be more of it. There will be more opportunities for the Labor Party, the greenies, and for all the naysayers to attack us because we will be out there doing things. We will be giving away more water and having more mining development across the Northern Territory, because that is the future of the Northern Territory. If it ruffles a few feathers, I guess we will just have to get past that. We are prepared to make those tough decisions.
Once again, Madam Speaker, I thank everybody for their contributions. We will continue to keep the real history of the Northern Territory alive and respond as I have this afternoon to the mistruths and the rewriting of history the opposition tries to peddle. I look forward very much to reporting on future and further mining developments across the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory has a very bright future.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
MOTION
Note Statement – Alcohol Mandatory Treatment
Note Statement – Alcohol Mandatory Treatment
Continued from 21 August 2013.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I am not sure, but I think I have 10 minutes left. Is that correct?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, it is.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, in this job you have an assortment of issues to cover in one day, especially when you are not expecting it. I am the fill-in man for General Business Day, although I am sure the Minister for Health will make plenty of comments.
I quickly read through my statements on this issue. I reiterate that I do not oppose the idea of mandatory alcohol rehabilitation, but I have concerns about the way and the manner in which it is carried out. When I spoke previously on this matter I was criticised by the member for Greatorex a fair bit because I did not support the bill at the time the government was putting it forward. It was not because I did not support the bill, but I was concerned about the infrastructure that was available to those people who were going to be part of this alcohol mandatory rehabilitation scheme.
In my 10 minutes, I ask the minister what facilities there are at this stage at CAAAPU? When I visited CAAAPU earlier this year, there were no facilities available but there was a plan to put a number of second-hand demountables on-site. My concerns at that stage were that I felt they were a risk simply because they were not designed for reducing the possibility of self-harm or even death. Also, the area they were to be put in was not that secure for trying to retain people on-site.
Also, when I visited Vendale, which is about 30 km south of Katherine, there was no facility at all for people under this scheme, and I was concerned there was also very little security. There is a chainmesh fence at the front. I am not sure if it is barbed wire or plain wire around the rest of the facility, which is okay for people who are there voluntarily, but if people are to be held there against their will then I was not particularly happy with the security of that facility since it is just up the road from the Stuart Highway. It would not be that hard to get a lift and go somewhere else.
I hope the medi-hotel, which we have had plenty of debate about, will go back to being what it was designed for. I am sure there are plenty of carers who come up with their spouses who would hope that facility is open, considering the squeeze on accommodation in the Darwin area at present. It would be interesting to hear what stage the government is at in finding other facilities for the Mandatory Alcohol Rehabilitation Centre.
I visited what was called the secure care centre at Holtze the other day to drop off a newsletter, and I noticed the barrels on the top of the fences seem to have gone. I am unsure whether that facility has moved totally out of the possibility of being used for alcohol mandatory rehabilitation. I am unsure of the status of that facility at present. I thought that facility might be a reasonable option. There was some talk in parliament about it being used for youth. I thought I would put that in as something out of left field, you might say.
I was going to ask the minster during Question Time: up until now how many people are in alcohol mandatory rehabilitation? Could the minister tell us where they are and in what facilities they are being held? How many people have gone missing? They are the things we need to know. Have there been any people who have finished their three-month course? I do not have the date when this started, but I am interested to know if anyone has finished the course. If so, could the minister give us a report on whether there has been any change in that person’s life? There has been much discussion about the effectiveness of this program. We talk about very low percentages of success, even with people who submit to voluntarily rehabilitation. If there are some people who have completed their course, it would be interesting to find out whether there has been any change in that person’s life.
The minister made some statements when this matter was being debated. I will stand to be corrected, but I think she spoke about the possibility of 800 people being involved in mandatory alcohol rehabilitation. When the minister speaks, it would be good to hear about the numbers we have and how they compares with the estimate. The reason I ask is that I wonder whether the concept of being put in mandatory rehabilitation may have scared people away from being picked up. Obviously it does not take long for word to get around that if I get picked up three times I am headed for three months inside a facility where I will not be allowed to leave.
Someone spoke to me yesterday about smoking in prisons. They said there has been a bit of a drop off in the number of people going to prison and they were wondering whether the new rules about no smoking in prison might have made people think twice. I ask the minister whether the number of people being picked up is different than the government estimated they would be picking up at this stage of the program.
I would have liked to have put a little more thought into the 10 minutes. However, with about three or four different topics on this afternoon, it has been a bit hard to put a little more work into this response to the minister’s statement. I reiterate, as much as I know the government has come in for criticism about this, I support mandatory rehabilitation where part of that principle is based on compassion.
If it is just about getting people off the street, that is it, but I do not accept that is all it is about. It is moving people off the streets and trying to give the public some peace, but it is also about trying to rehabilitate people, and giving them a chance to think about where they are going in their future life, especially where it concerns the effect of alcohol on their lives. I also think we need to do it as – this might sound a bit strange – these people are my brothers and sisters, and we should help those people. That is where the compassion has to be and why I have always said the facilities have to be more than just a room. They have to be a place that is nearly a home because that reflects the compassion that needs to go with this process. We are – ‘we’ the parliament – making a pretty big change in people’s lives and change in the way we deal with people, because we are basically arresting people who have not committed a crime. To put it bluntly, it is fairly dramatic legislation that goes against normal human rights, but if it is done for the purpose for which it should be done – to assist people to try to overcome an alcohol addiction, to try to give them a chance to turn their lives around, to give the community some peace and quiet, and show, as a society, some compassion for these people who find it difficult under their own steam to change their lives – then I support this type of legislation.
Madam Speaker, I am interested in listening to some answers to those questions from the minister about how this mandatory alcohol rehabilitation program is progressing at present.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Alcohol Rehabilitation): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for his contribution to this debate, and the member for Fannie Bay who contributed way back in August. This has been a dramatic era in the Northern Territory’s mechanisms and strategies for addressing alcohol problems in our community.
In answer to a statement made by the member for Nelson, we are, indeed, making big changes to people’s lives. Just three months since the inception of this alcohol mandatory treatment program, we are seeing some dramatic changes in people’s lives. The stories I am hearing are very positive.
It was a bold initiative, one that we, on this side of the Chamber, the government, are extremely proud of. It came about during our time in opposition. We spent many hours of our time in shadow Cabinet debating and creating what we felt was a different policy that was required to try to address the chronic problem of alcohol abuse in our community. What we came up with was a powerful and new initiative called our Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Program.
We did it because there was a gap in the strategies laid out by the former Labor government. Their strategies were all about reducing the supply of alcohol. We agree that has to be part of an overall package, but what was seriously lacking were strategies around reducing demand for alcohol, particularly for people with chronic long-term serious alcohol problems.
Our strategy is a balanced one, never seen before in the Northern Territory and never seen on this scale anywhere in Australia. It is very exciting. We are in our initial stages of the roll-out and implementation of alcohol mandatory treatment in the Northern Territory. We have completed phase one, which was a very rapid roll-out of this program. It saw the setting up of the mandatory treatment program in Darwin which, as the member for Nelson stated, is located at the medi-hotel, the short-term accommodation facility at Royal Darwin Hospital.
This was always to be a temporary location for alcohol mandatory treatment in Darwin, and we have seen that this facility is adequate. It is not ideal. I have been very open about the fact it lacks in some ways, but it is adequate to get us through until we can move into the low-security unit at Berrimah prison, which will be ideal. There is plenty of space there. It has full visibility of people coming and going from their rooms and participating in programs. It has good security. People cannot abscond.
That has been a problem at the medi-hotel which, once again, I have not kept secret. We were always told by the existing residential alcohol rehabilitation providers throughout the Territory that people will take off and flee from treatment, because at times they would much prefer to be elsewhere with their family. Some, obviously, go back to the grog. However, the medi-hotel will suffice until we move to Berrimah in August next year.
We have also assisted CAAAPU, the Central Australian Aboriginal Alcohol Program Unit, to expand its facility for the specific needs of our mandatory program. They have been brilliant in coming on board. I cannot speak highly enough of the work of Philip Allnutt and Eileen Hoosan and their team in helping us roll out 20 beds on their 10-acre block outside Alice Springs in the rural area. They have an existing residential alcohol rehabilitation program and have embraced the opportunity to test themselves and take on this enormous challenge.
I visited CAAAPU last Friday morning and, ironically, I was back again on Saturday afternoon showing a visitor to Central Australia, Warren Mundine, Chairperson of the Prime Minister’s new Indigenous Advisory Committee. I was showing him the alcohol mandatory treatment centre. With us was his wife, Elizabeth, and the Chief Minister. There is much interest across the country in what we are doing. Warren Mundine and his wife were very impressed. We met many of the weekend staff at CAAAPU who were able to describe how the programs function there and told stories of how people are changing their lives in the mandatory side of the treatment service, but also in the non-mandatory side. It is a beautiful facility and I encourage all members of parliament, when they come to Alice Springs, to ring CAAAPU and ask if they can look around. There is nothing to criticise about what they have established.
The member for Nelson had concerns about the early building of the mandatory treatment side of the establishment at CAAAPU. In the early stages it looked quite crude, as if it would not be particularly comfortable for people staying there. I can assure you it is very comfortable now. People are settling in and most appear to be enjoying their time participating in rehabilitation at CAAAPU.
The CAAAPU facility in Alice Springs goes hand in hand with the assessment centre located at the secure care facility on the periphery of the corrections precinct at the Alice Springs Corrections Centre. This is, again, a magnificent facility. It was set up for a slightly different purpose, but it is modern and caters for all the needs of people who are feeling unwell and possibly requiring special care and attention. That is exactly what they get at the secure care facility where people are assessed. It is now known as the Alice Springs Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Assessment Centre.
CAAAPU is full. Our 20 mandatory treatment beds are full. I note a media release issued yesterday from an Alice Springs ABC journalist, Anthony Stewart, saying, ‘Customer waiting list at grog rehab full house’. That is a good news story.
We have 10 women and 10 men in CAAAPU undergoing mandatory treatment. Added to that, we have our first two graduates leaving the program within the next two weeks. The very first person to come into alcohol mandatory treatment across the Northern Territory was a woman who was taken into CAAAPU early in July. Her three months is just about up. Her 12-week mandatory rehabilitation program finishes very soon and she will be assisted in the community as part of an after-care program. We are told that the Safe and Sober Program run by Congress in Alice Springs will possibly be taking her as one of their clients who they will help in the community to, hopefully, stay off the grog.
I am going back and forth a bit, but the medi-hotel has had security issues, there is no doubt about it. We are investing some more money into increasing the security of the medi-hotel over the next couple of months. It is not just about increasing the security but minimising the risk for people who feel like absconding. We do not want them to hurt themselves in an endeavour to flee from the centre, so we are trying to address that issue as soon as possible. As I said, this is a temporary measure so we are not inclined to spend a huge amount of money on anything to do with the medi-hotel, given we will be out of there in less than 12 months’ time.
There have been many challenges involved in the roll-out of alcohol mandatory treatment in the Northern Territory, and there have been some interesting revelations about the people we are capturing. One was that we knew these people would be sick, but most of them have a range of chronic and acute conditions which need to be addressed. They come into our assessment service after the trigger, which is being taken into protective custody three times in two months, and their alcohol problem is assessed. They are also assessed for their physical and mental health.
We are finding these people are physically very unwell. They are people who have been drinking for a very long time, and often that means their money has gone solely on buying alcohol and they have not looked after themselves at all. These people are often very undernourished, and some of them are emaciated. They have diabetes, like most people who drink alcohol excessively, and do not take care of themselves. Most of these people, of course, are Aboriginal, as we forecast they would be. Many of them have other very serious complaints. Some of them have liver conditions and renal failure to varying extents. Most of them have sexually transmitted diseases or infections.
One of the great challenges we have encountered when we take these people into the assessment centre is commencing the diagnosis and treatment of these conditions they have in addition to their alcohol problem. This is taking up a great deal of time. The doctors in the assessment centres are very busy. In Alice Springs at the weekend the eight beds in the assessment centre were full. The team in the Alice Springs assessment centre was working very hard to not only assess the alcohol aspect of these people, but also the physical problems.
After going before the tribunal where an order is made, these people are transferred into the treatment centres and much of the initial focus is on treating their physical conditions, their chronic diseases and the acute conditions they have picked up along the way. This involves transferring or accompanying people to medical appointments, whether they are at the Royal Darwin Hospital, Congress in Alice Springs, or other medical centres in Katherine and throughout the Territory. This takes a great deal of time and is something we did not forecast very accurately in the planning stages. It is not a huge issue or problem, but it is something we have realised through our experiences over the last three months: the need for people to attend many medical appointments because they are so unwell.
The member for Nelson asked about the secure care facility at Holtze. To be perfectly frank, we did look very hard at how we could use that facility for alcohol mandatory treatment. It is exactly the same as the secure care facility in Alice Springs, of which we use half for the assessment of alcohol mandatory treatment. The problem with the service in Darwin is it is much bigger, and as time goes on it will need to process many more people than in Alice Springs. The secure care facility at Holtze, we feel, was not big enough. Given that, like the medi-hotel, it was going to be a temporary solution, we were not inclined to spend a huge amount of money on expanding or changing it.
We saw that as a potential waste of money. We have inherited a very tight fiscal situation in the Northern Territory from the former Labor government so we are not going to waste money. We want to ensure whatever we invest in the medi-hotel or at CAAAPU will benefit people in the long term, whether it is in the case of the medi-hotel alcohol clients or the step-up, step-down clients who will be moving in there from August next year, as originally planned.
The secure care facility at Holtze is not a health facility; it is a Department of Children and Families facility. I will not talk about what their intention is for that facility, only to say that it will not be used in any way for alcohol mandatory treatment at this stage.
The overall success of the program is an enormously contentious issue. The opposition will stick to their line that success will only be about 100% abstinence, and that is it. Into the future, they will no doubt maintain that unless people stay off the grog forever, then we have failed miserably. It would really pay for people who are genuinely interested in this phase to familiarise themselves with the general means of measuring success within residential alcohol rehabilitation services. It is really about teaching people how to live with alcohol, how to abstain if they can, but also how to drink sensibly and in a more controlled fashion, maintaining their health, relationships and their ability to function in the community.
One of the things I have personally enjoyed about my travel or adventure through this process is fully understanding, as the member for Nelson highlighted in his speech, it is about the person, the individual. It is about them having a unique experience around drinking and why they drink, and then rehabilitation being a very personal experience. It is a clinical experience but it is more about a person’s journey through coming to terms with their problem, then making some very different decisions about how they lead their lives. At the end of the day, we know some people will go through rehabilitation once and change their drinking habits and behaviours and proceed to lead a much richer and healthier life, but for other people it will take many times or opportunities to go through rehabilitation before they get to that point, if they ever do.
Success is something we would prefer to define very broadly, not just because we are trying to demonstrate to the opposition that it is a great success, but because to define it narrowly is stripping back and taking away that very personal experience and journey which is rehabilitation. It is a tough gig. It is not something I would choose to go through.
While I was at CAAAPU the other day I was introduced to most of the women in mandatory rehabilitation. I recognised most of those women. I have lived in Alice Springs for 20 years. I have seen those women on the streets. They have had tough lives, and some of them were going through quite a tough experience in rehabilitation. While I was there, one lady was very angry and agitated. I imagine for some people it would be absolutely horrendous.
I am not going to give figures on how we are travelling today. I intend to do that later at a different opportunity during the sittings. Suffice to say, the numbers are building …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister for Alcohol Rehabilitation, it is 5.30 pm. In accordance with the rules, it is General Business Day.
Mrs LAMBLEY: I will round up. Can I have two minutes?
Madam SPEAKER: No. Would you like to conclude your remarks at a later time?
Mrs LAMBLEY: Yes. I am a bit deceived by the clock up there. I thought I had two to three minutes.
Madam SPEAKER: No, it is 5.30 pm on the clock.
Debate adjourned.
WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION
Water Rights
Water Rights
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 103, I notify the Assembly that I withdraw the motion regarding water rights on today’s Notice Paper at General Business Notice No 1.
WORKERS REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION AMENDMENT
(FIRE-FIGHTERS) BILL
(Serial 43)
(FIRE-FIGHTERS) BILL
(Serial 43)
Continued from 28 August 2013.
Mr TOLLNER (Business): Madam Speaker, I continue my remarks from the last General Business Day speaking about firefighters and the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Scheme and the review that is happening.
Before I get into the political aspects of what is happening, we have reviewed this bill put forward by the opposition. It is a poorly drafted bill. There are no transitional provisions in the bill, and it fails to distinguish between volunteers and full-time firefighters. It is important the bill should do these things, because without distinguishing between volunteers and full-time firefighters, one can conceivably see a situation where an individual was a volunteer for one fire and 25 years later has the ability to come back and put a claim in for throat cancer, for instance, and would possibly be eligible for compensation. It lacks detail in that regard.
The issue of transitional provisions relates a great deal to retrospectivity of claims. For instance, there should be some transitional provisions which identify people who may have worked many years ago in the fire department and many years later develop cancer, and whether that should result in a claim for compensation. That is another reason the government cannot support the bill.
However, as I said during the last parliamentary sittings, we are very sensitive to the concerns of firemen and others in emergency services. I am keen to see the review of the Northern Territory Workers Compensation Schemehappen quickly. I am keenly sympathetic to the plight of firemen in our community and am happy to support their efforts where possible.
Last week I met with United Voice and several firefighters affected by cancer, and I am grateful for the meeting. It was a constructive meeting and was an opportunity to share our different points of view. I made a commitment at that meeting to go back to the department and ascertain whether there was any possibility of pulling the aspects relating to firefighters out of that review, have it done faster and put into legislation quicker. I took the matter up with WorkSafe and asked them to look at it and provide me with a brief. I intend to share this brief with the people from United Voice and the firefighters. In fact, I have just given them a draft, but I will be writing a formal letter and attaching the brief. I am happy to table that brief for the enlightenment of this Chamber.
The brief says there are some difficulties in taking this out of the review and I will quote part of it:
- While fire-fighters are highly regarded individuals in a generally risky occupation and have understandably engendered some emotive response from the media and other quarters, it is considered inappropriate to single them out for specialist consideration and mention in the legislation. In the current Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, for example, Subsection 6 Part 4 applies to all workers who have contracted a disease in the course of his or her employment. In the current Act, there are 28 deemed occupational diseases.
The review is a great opportunity to comprehensively examine the fire-fighters issues in the context of the overall review of the scheme, including in relation to what is occurring in other jurisdictions, where apart from the Australian Government, Tasmania is the only jurisdiction that has passed presumptive legislation specifically for fire-fighters. In South Australia, the amended legislation has been delayed in the Upper House and Western Australia is awaiting further action in their Upper House. No other states are currently considering introducing this type of legislation.
I read that out because it is important for people to understand we are taking this issue seriously and want to see some of the debates that occur in other parts of the country. I am quite cognisant of what has occurred in Tasmania and am sympathetic to the plight of firies in the Northern Territory.
In relation to the workers rehabilitation and compensation scheme review that is currently occurring, there has been some concern that this review is taking some time. I fully understand that concern because this is the first time the scheme has been reviewed in some 30-odd years. We want to do quite a comprehensive review which will take some time.
However, the review has been ongoing since March this year. The people doing the review are well and truly down the track with it. I am advised a preliminary issues paper will be completed by 11 November, which is a month away. There is an expectation legislation will be introduced in the early part of next year and, by middle of next year, it is our hope legislation will be passed in this regard.
I can only stress again I am very sympathetic to the plight of the firies and am very keen to do what we can to assist them. Having said that, there has been an element of politics played in this issue …
Mr Gunner: No, there has not.
Mr TOLLNER: Absolutely, member for Fannie Bay!
As I said, this review has been ongoing since March this year. I take note that my good friend, the member for Nelson, has availed himself of briefings in relation to this issue. He has been briefed by the department. United Voice and the firies have met with both the Chief Minister and I and should have a pretty good idea where our thinking is on this matter.
However, I find it highly and completely offensive that the opposition would play politics with firemen. The fact of the matter is the opposition had 11 years in government; they have had plenty of time to act on this. You can see what has occurred since then. They have had absolutely no input into this review process. In fact, United Voice’s submission went to this review in April 2013 and made no reference to firefighters. They made another submission yesterday fundamentally supporting the opposition’s bill.
Until a couple of weeks ago, no one in the opposition was remotely interested in this issue, not a soul. Why? What would motivate the opposition to come in here with the only piece of legislation they have had in the last 12 months, two weeks before a federal election, screaming blue murder saying, ‘We have to do something’? You had 11 years to do something. You had a great opportunity to have input into this review, and you have done nothing. However, two weeks out from a federal election you mustered up a large number of firemen, came in here and played political games with them. It was all over the media everywhere. There was no briefing, no coming to talk to us, no saying you had an interest in this in any stage at all. You just came in here, lobbed a bill in front of the parliament which, I have to say now that I have had the opportunity to have a good hard read of it, was quickly constructed, poorly drafted, and was brought into the parliament without any consultation with anyone. Absolutely appalling! It was simply a political tool to draw attention to yourselves in a federal election. It was absolutely shameful that you would deal with firemen in that way.
As I said when I spoke last time in relation to this bill, we are sympathetic to firemen. Everybody in the Northern Territory appreciates the work firemen do. We only want to see the best for them, but we will not be caught up in your political games. If you do not think we can see political games when they are coming, you are in dream world. Not only did you knock up a poorly drafted bill, you lobbed in here two weeks before a federal election with an issue you have never talked about, but had 11 years to do something about, demanding that we support your bill. I find that and your audacity in involving fireman to do that offensive. It is appalling behaviour from a desperate opposition.
We will not be supporting this bill. First, it is poorly drafted and is bad legislation, and that is the fundamental reason we will not support it. Second, you want to play political games. We are well and truly down the track of this workers compensation review. It would still be a great opportunity for you to get in, get a briefing, and put your two cents’ worth in with the local people who are running the review. Mr George Roussos, a respected lawyer, and Mr Mark Crossin, a respected advocate for workers’ rights, are conducting the review. It is completely above board and transparent. I encourage you to have input into that review to ensure the people you purport to represent are adequately represented.
I thank the member for Nelson for his proactive manner in analysing the merits of this bill and for seeking a briefing. He has gone a hell of a long way further than any member of the opposition has, and he deserves some credit for that.
Madam Speaker, as I said, the government will not be supporting this bill. I reiterate that we are supportive of firefighters and those in emergency services; they do a great job for the Territory. We rely on them heavily and we all want to see the best for them. This government is committed to doing just that.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, it is with great disappointment we saw yet another rant and rave from the Deputy Chief Minister, instead of dealing with this with the appropriate gravity this issue definitely deserves. For him to play the grubby political slanging we just saw is incredibly disappointing. We had hoped after your last display you would have taken some more time to consider your situation. Sadly, that is not the case.
I welcome the firefighters, members of their families and their union representatives here, because for us in Labor, union is not a dirty word. Union is not an organisation that we bash, we will work with you in solidarity to ensure people are adequately covered in all of their workplace issues, including the very important issues of compensation.
I thank my colleague, the member for Fannie Bay, the shadow minister, for working diligently with the firefighters of the Northern Territory and United Voice to bring this legislation before the House. We obviously did have discussions in our Caucus around legislation and what would be our first bill to introduce as an opposition. We felt united as a team, that this is the most appropriate legislation to bring forward to the House. We felt it had, at its core, a decency that meant we are extending a hand to help those who have spent their working lives helping our society and community.
We see firefighters put themselves in incredibly dangerous circumstances in their jobs, day in and day out. We see the stress they go through, the trauma they witness, and the dangerous circumstances they find themselves in. We understand the stress their families go through and see the consequences of the incredibly important work they do. We recognise, whether they are professional full-time firefighters, auxiliary firefighters, or volunteers in our rural bushfire brigades, they all put themselves at risk and in harm’s way for the benefit of our community.
It is important we understand that the timing of this legislation is not a political ploy. It is work we considered early on when getting into opposition. The shadow minister then diligently worked with the key stakeholders: the firefighters and the United Voice union. We then went through the parliamentary process in drafting the bill. I repudiate the view held by the Deputy Chief Minister that this legislation is flawed in its drafting. It is not flawed; it is modelled on the Commonwealth legislation with the addition of retrospectivity. Being a lawmaker of some 12 years, I understand the difficulties of retrospectivity, and we did not put that in there lightly. We put retrospectivity into this legislation because we understand that today there are important Territorians in our community who are suffering the consequences of having worked in a toxic environment and are suffering cancer and severe illness as a result of that work. Retrospectivity for us was tested and deemed to be fair and reasonable.
We are a small community, and we have a view on how many individuals retrospectivity this would affect and, therefore, what some potential quantum of retrospectivity could be. That being said, we do not have access to Treasury, so it was not done to the nth degree. We assessed all of that, weighed it conscientiously and understood it is a reasonable element to add to the legislation. It will not break the bank of the Northern Territory. It will not be an unreasonable demand on the resources of the Northern Territory to provide retrospectivity in this legislation. It is not flawed technically; it is modelled on the Commonwealth legislation.
If there is a view and a concern around retrospectivity, then the government needs to come clean and be honest about that. If there is not, then point to any clauses within the bill that have a significant flaw in their structure, because, as I said, it was modelled on Commonwealth legislation.
As to, ‘Labor in government had 11 years to deal with this’, my understanding is the Commonwealth legislation was passed in late 2007. Discussions occurred with the then Chief Minister, the previous member for Wanguri, Paul Henderson, in early 2012. He gave his commitment it would be an election commitment from us. We would walk in, in government, and pass legislation providing for this coverage for our firefighters. We had publically stated that intention, and we are fulfilling that commitment, albeit in opposition, having extended the hand to government to try to do something in a bipartisan manner that would yield a result that in any reasonable test or view would be considered a reasonable thing to do.
I was born in Darwin, and as a child growing up in Darwin I spent much of my time in the household of the former firefighter and union delegate, Robert Bonson. He fought valiantly for his mates in the fire service and taught me many things that I hold dear and carry through my life on ethics, integrity, compassion and understanding the work firefighters do. There are many habits I carry in my life because Robert taught me them. I was treated as his daughter and am incredibly proud to have had that learning in my life in the work the Darwin firies did through that period of the 1960s and 1970s. It was very real and happened when I used to eat his fantastic cooking, because my mother was possibly the world’s worst cook. Thank God, Robert was an awesome cook.
He made me understood at a very young age the genuine dangers that occurred. Even at that young age it struck me they would go to work in these quite open vehicles with hardly any protection gear around them. What you see with a firefighter today, compared to what you saw when I was growing up as a child in Darwin, is chalk and cheese. We know there is protective clothing and gear now which they don when they go into hazardous situations. We know dangerous goods legislation requires things to be labelled as best they can so people go into a situation where there is a fire blazing knowing what toxic fumes are there. All those toxic issues occurred in those decades of the 1960s, 1970s and into the 1980s, without the balance of protective equipment and the graphic recognition of the dangerous goods labelling.
Our firefighters, the people we know, the people we hold dear, and for some of us the people we grew up amongst, walked into that environment and bear the consequences of it today in the toll it is taking on their health. They are strong men in our services who are fighting these illnesses.
At the very least we could have taken a bipartisan approach today and passed this legislation. If there was a technical flaw the government saw in transition provisions, bring an amendment, because that is what occurs with legislation in this House all the time. When legislation sits on the books it is there from one month to another for a reason. If there is a technical issue and the Deputy Chief Minister said, ‘I did not see the transition provisions I wanted’, bring an amendment. Change it to suit your technical concerns rather than say, ‘We are not doing this. We are not supporting it because we find it flawed in its structure’ without going into any detail other than vaguely mentioning transition provisions which, quite frankly, could easily be in an amendment schedule attached to the legislation. That could easily have occurred.
Put that excuse aside and you get down to the political football excuse we heard from the Deputy Chief Minister. We repudiate that completely. We are moving in sync with the time frame jurisdictions are moving in all around our nation to recognise that whilst we have many professions which, by the nature of their work, require specific coverage within workers compensation, firefighters stand out above and beyond the rest because of the nature of their work entering hazardous environments, breathing toxic fumes. That is why the Commonwealth has moved separately. That is why Tasmania moved separately in early 2012. That is why we are proposing the Northern Territory moves separately.
Regarding the review into the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, I have received the Department of Business memorandum just tabled by the Deputy Chief Minister. One of the skills I have, having worked in the media for some years, is I can read incredibly quickly. I have read it. I went to what is in this which genuinely prevents the government from accepting this legislation today. Inherently, there is nothing technically in this that prevents a bipartisan approach today. What is in it that would prevent the Chief Minister, as Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services, from pulling it out of their review and fast-tracking it?
I quote from the Minister for Business’s memo tabled in the parliament today:
- While fire-fighters are highly regarded individuals in a generally risky occupation and have understandably engendered some emotive response from the media and other quarters, it is considered inappropriate to single them out for specialist consideration and mention in the legislation.
That is it? That is why you will not fast-track them because ‘it is considered inappropriate to single them out’? By who, minister? By the person who signed this, the CE? Has the CE of your department engaged in any discussions with the firefighters around why they have been singled out in the Commonwealth jurisdiction and the Tasmanian jurisdiction and why we are proposing to single them out in this jurisdiction? Has there been any genuine deep-seated consideration around this issue of singling them out other than to say it is considered inappropriate? On that basis, as minister you said, ‘That is okay, I will sign off on that memo’, even though the memo is not signed or dated by the minister? Is that it? Is that what it takes to knock something genuinely reasonable on the head? That is deeply disappointing.
You are not supporting the legislation so it will not pass today. Be a better person than you displayed today, Deputy Chief Minister, and reconsider the time line of June 2014 for introduction of workers compensation legislation that may or may not pick up the issues contained in this legislation. If there is a genuine desire by the government to deliver on the coverage provided by the legislation before the House, both in its detail as well as its retrospectivity, and undertake that work, then pull it out of the broader review and bring the time line forward. Claim it as your own work, and you will have the support of the opposition. If you want your own legislation with your own name to it fast-tracked out of the existing review, you will have our support. We care enough for the people who care enough about us, who put their lives at risk to save our lives and our property in hazardous and risky circumstances, who then go on to contract diseases that threaten their lives and means they require significant medical support. We care enough to say they deserve their own status within workers compensation.
We also believe it is very real and, right now, today in the Northern Territory, there is a handful of Territorians suffering who should be covered, who have earned the right to be covered. A responsible government which could show some compassion could provide that coverage.
Again, I thank my colleague, the member for Fannie Bay, for bringing this forward.
This is no free gift. There are processes within this legislation that provide the well-established links between firefighting and certain classes of cancers and point out the support firefighters can expect. This furphy led by the Deputy Chief Minister that someone can fight a fire once, and the legislation will apply to them – wrong! The government, of course, can challenge any matter brought before it. That was simply and utterly a furphy.
The checks and balances that test the descriptions are all in this legislation, which makes it fair, reasonable and just. Just because Labor introduced it and is pursuing it, you are saying you cannot accept it because you believe it is technically flawed, although you have brought no amendments. Then, you said you are doing a review, you do not want to single firefighters out, when firefighters have been genuinely singled out in other jurisdictions moving to cover them. The case has been put, heard and won. There are precedents.
Just because you hold all of those views and you did your rant today – try one more thing. Go away and reconsider your actions of today. Show some compassion. I believe there is a role in government for compassion, particularly in leadership. Change your mind on that aspect of keeping it in the broader review until June 2014, bring it out, dust it off, fast-track it, give it retrospectivity, and you will have our full and total support.
Thank you to the firefighters and families. I apologise, in some way, for the behaviour of some politicians.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I make comment on the bill before us. At the outset, sometimes there is a third point of view when you are an Independent. I support in principle what has been put forward, but I have some concerns about part of the legislation. For that reason, I will probably abstain from voting. I say to firefighters that this legislation needs to come into the parliament and be discussed. I hope it will not be very long before it is passed as law in this parliament. However, I believe it needs some more work before that happens. I will give my reasons why and will also be asking the government to give some guarantees, as they say they support the principle but will not support the bill today.
I also thank the government for its briefing. Work Health gave me a briefing last night and today. I also thank the member for Fannie Bay for bringing this legislation forward, which is part of the opposition’s job. I also thank the member for Fannie Bay for giving me his views on the legislation. He has listened to some of my concerns.
Of course, I read the bill and the second reading speech. My understanding is the first place to introduce this legislation was the Commonwealth government, and that has been in place for some time under Comcare. The only other place that has passed this legislation is the Tasmanian government. I spent some time this afternoon looking at the bill and reading a fair bit of the debate. There was quite a bit of debate in the Tasmanian parliament. When I say debate, I do not think anyone in the Tasmanian government or parliament was opposing the principle of what was put forward, but they raised a number of issues.
One of those issues was the definition of voluntary firefighters in relation to this bill. There was much discussion about whether volunteers should be equal with career firefighters in relation to matters of claim that could be put to a worker’s compensation claim. What came out of that is best summed up after that debate by the UFUA media release which said:
- Congratulations UFUA Tasmania! The first Australian state to pass occupational cancer legislation for firefighters …
It went on to say:
- The Tasmanian Parliament today passed presumptive legislation recognising occupational cancer for firefighters and in doing so is the first Australian State to protect its firefighters.
The Bill is modelled on the Federal ‘Fair Protection for Firefighters’ legislation in that it provides a presumption for the same 12 occupational cancers with the same qualifying periods for career firefighters.
The Tasmanian Government has developed a new template to include volunteer firefighters …
Volunteer firefighters were not included in the Commonwealth legislation:
- The presumption applies to volunteer firefighters with the same qualifying periods provided the volunteer can also demonstrate having attended 150 incidents within any 5-year period for brain cancer and leukaemia, and within any 10-year period for the remaining 10 listed cancers …
It then went on to congratulate the minister and the members of the union for passing this legislation.
The volunteer firefighters do a fantastic job in my area and throughout the Northern Territory, whether they are working for the Bushfire Council NT or the Northern Territory Fire Service.
As it is, this legislation more or less says everybody is equal. I am unsure if that is a good thing. That is not saying people are not entitled to compensation, but that part of the bill needs more work done on it. I would like to go back to the volunteers and get their opinion on that issue also. Tasmania debated it; if you read their debate in parliament you will see it was an issue that was debated. When I read the UFUA media release, it is obvious they see there is a difference between volunteer fire brigade people and career fire brigade people when talking about this legislation.
Whether volunteers or the career firefighters in the Northern Territory agree with that, I am not sure. However, there is some doubt as to whether the way it is worded in this existing legislation is fair and reasonable, and it needs some work done on it. That is one area about which I have a concern.
From the briefings I have had, my understanding is if you had retrospectivity it could go back forever and a day. I have spoken to the Deputy Chief Minister and have said that I know there are a number of cases of people who are sick who worked for the fire brigade for many years. As a compromise, I have asked the minister to at least say he will support a claim by those firefighters as if this presumptive legislation existed today. I am sure the government has the power to do that. That would at least give those people some comfort while this went through a review process. My understanding is the review process is coming towards the end – I think it has a month or two to go – but will not be looked at properly or come back to parliament until next year.
I take up the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that in light of what has been put forward today, the government could speed up some of that. I would not like to see a shortening of the time in which people are able to put forward their comments on a review. That is not the speeding up you need, because many times we complain governments do not give enough time for people to have input into a review. Perhaps the process after the review could be sped up, especially in the form of the legislative program being brought before this parliament. That is something the government should take notice of because that is a good response to what is happening.
As I said, I know our firefighters do a fantastic job. It is not just firefighting, of course. They are the first response people when it comes to car accidents and terrible things that most of us do not have to face. In this case, we are generally dealing more with the effects of chemical fires and all the matters some years ago for which many of these older fire brigade people would have had less equipment to protect them.
Today, we know uniforms are much better than they used to be. We know breathing apparatus is much better. We know there is equipment to limit the possibility of people being made sick by their work environment. We are talking about some of the older firefighters who have worked for such a long time in the department when some of this equipment would have been quite primitive. There is a fair chance those people were in an atmosphere which was not conducive to their health.
It is obvious the government will not support the opposition today. I ask the minister, as a sign of good faith, if the government supports in principle what is being put forward but would like to do it as part of the review, how about giving a guarantee that you would be willing to look at those people who would have liked to use this legislation as a means of obtaining compensation for illnesses they believe they acquired during their time as firefighters? That would be a sign of being fair dinkum in relation to support for our firefighters, but at the same time would say you need a little more time to ensure this legislation is workable and fair to all parties. That would be reasonable.
I thank the opposition for bringing forward this legislation. As I said, sometimes there is a privilege in being an Independent. There is always a third opinion. In this case, I fully support the principle behind this legislation. It is something which will happen throughout the rest of Australia. It is in a number of parliaments at the moment being discussed. Perhaps if it is passed in South Australia before the review is finished we should be looking at what they are doing. I presume that all states’ members of parliament do what the leader of opposition business did. He looked at the Commonwealth and thought that was a good idea. He obviously looked at ACT and the aviation industry in relation to this type of legislation. Read the media release from the UFUA. Their view is that the parliament of Tasmania probably looked at that legislation and they have come up with what they think is legislation suitable for them. It would also be interesting to see what South Australia comes up with.
Madam Speaker, that is all I would like to say on this subject.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I support this bill. Before I start my speech I put on the record what a disgrace the total lack of support by this current government for this important bill brought forward by the member for Fannie Bay is. The fact that we have two members out of 15 in this Chamber …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Johnston, you do not refer to members who are in or out of the parliament. Please refrain from that.
Mr VOWLES: I apologise, Madam Speaker.
The total lack of support by this government for such an important bill raised in this Chamber is a disgrace.
The firefighters of the Northern Territory – indeed firefighters around the world – risk their lives each and every day to keep us safe. Firefighters protect our property, homes, workplaces, small businesses, motor vehicles, livestock, and regions. Even more importantly, they protect our loved ones, often putting themselves in harm’s way to save the people we love. Firefighting is a proud, respected and noble profession in some of the world’s toughest working conditions. We must do more than honour firefighters with mere words, we must ensure we honour them with our actions.
Firefighters work in hazardous circumstances. Most of us work in fairly certain or predictable circumstances. It is a good bet that tomorrow I will drive to parliament to work in the same office I work in every day. There is a very good chance I will be safe in my workplace. I will not be placed in any dangerous situations or exposed to hazardous materials. This is the reality for most Australians. Our firefighters do not always have the same certainty. They work according to different sets of conditions which change every day.
Think of some of the variables in the day-to-day work of a firefighter, such as the weather, wind, the type of property, the types of materials burning and the types of chemicals burning. It requires a high level of skill and tenacity to be a firefighter. Add that to an appropriate amount of courage to place yourself in life-threatening situations. Every week, Territorians are touched by their dedication. We thank you.
You would be hard pressed to find anybody who did not like a firefighter. They are one of the most respected and trusted frontline workers. Being a firefighter carries significant risks. There are the immediate risks of being in an operational situation. There are also long-term risks to health and wellbeing. We know from the evidence that firefighters have high mortality rates. We know they also have more adverse health outcomes than any people in the workforce.
A United States study found the workplace fatality rate of firefighters is 17 per 100 000. That compares with five per 100 000 for other types of workers. Various studies, both here and abroad, also show that firefighters have an elevated risk of cancers. This includes cancer of the colon, kidneys, testicular, skin and prostate, in addition to myeloma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. This is due to exposure to hazardous and carcinogenic materials in the line of duty.
As mentioned earlier, most of us turn up to work in safe and predictable workplace environments. Our employers have an obligation to ensure their employees engage in their task in a safe environment. Safety in the workplace is a cause championed and delivered by the great Labor movement of Australia. As a Labor member of parliament, I salute the trade unions and workers of today and yesterday who have fought hard to make safer work places a reality for most Australians. Employers must keep their workers safe.
The same principle applies to our firefighters. The Northern Territory government must keep its employees safe, and this includes Northern Territory firefighters. Where it cannot keep its employees safe it must ensure they are able to access compensation for damages. It has been well demonstrated that firefighters have elevated risks of illness and disease through exposure to work. We cannot tolerate a situation where men and women who have put themselves in harm’s way for the protection of others are left to fend for themselves if disaster strikes. That is not the Australian way.
What happens at the moment is a firefighter seeking to obtain compensation for a disease must establish that his or her employment was a major significant contributing factor. This is how it stands today. Amidst all the stress and anxiety associated with a life-threatening illness, a firefighter must prove it. Often this can be difficult.
If passed, this bill will change all that. This will insert a rebuttable presumption. This is a presumption that certain illnesses or diseases had been contracted by a worker in the course of his or her employment. This will bring our legislation in line with the Commonwealth and Tasmania which have already introduced similar provisions.
As the member for Fannie Bay pointed out in his second reading speech, it will include a scheduled listing of relevant diseases and the cancers known to be caused by fire exposure. Importantly, the schedule will provide flexibility to prescribe further diseases if the evidence supports these further down the track.
In conclusion, I say this bill is fair. It is also the right thing to do. It is fair because firefighters work each and every day to protect us. They do so by placing themselves in risky situations. They do so with tremendous skill and courage. We know from the evidence available to us that firefighters work in hazardous conditions; they are often exposed to carcinogenic substances. We know from the evidence that firefighters have an elevated risk of certain types of cancers compared to other cohorts of the population. It is only fair that if they honour us in difficult situations, we should also honour them in the difficult situations they have to face.
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Fannie Bay for introducing this bill. I thank, on behalf of all Territorians, the Northern Territory firies.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, first, I acknowledge the firies and their families up there in the gallery. It is important to be here today for this debate.
I support this bill which aims to give Northern Territory firefighters the support they deserve should they develop cancer as a result of doing their job. This is an important bill we are debating that will go a long way in helping firefighters and volunteer firefighters and their families have some comfort going forward in their careers, knowing if they have to battle cancer as a result of doing their job, the Northern Territory government, their employer, will be there for them.
Presumptive legislation will be a significant change for our firefighters, and the Territory will be at the forefront with other jurisdictions putting these changes in place. Workers will be seeking coverage through the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act where their entitlements will be no different. It is just that there will be recognition in the act that, in the case of firefighters and volunteer firefighters who contract certain types of cancers, there will be a rebuttable presumption mechanism in place for them; that is, if the firefighters applying for workers compensation unfortunately get one of the prescribed cancers in the act, then the act will automatically give them the benefit of presumption that the illness has been contracted as a result of their firefighting work. If this is to be rebutted, it is now the employer charged with putting the case forward on why that should be.
While this specific type of presumptive legislation is relatively new in Australia, it is important to our local firies that we do this now. At a federal level, similar legislation was passed in 2011, and this year we have seen Tasmania pass similar legislation while Western Australia and South Australia have also introduced this type of legislation, as they too agree that firies are at greater risk of contracting certain cancers and should be supported if that happens.
Overseas, almost all Canadian jurisdictions have this type of legislation in place, and around half of the jurisdictions in the United States of America also have this recognition implemented for their firies.
As we can see in the gallery today, this is something our firefighters want and our firefighters battling cancer want as a result of their career need. This is a debate we should be having. We can help make the lives of some of our firefighters battling cancer a bit easier from this very day.
We all know and appreciate that firefighting is a unique job with some very specific challenges and requirements. Not anyone can be a career firie or a volunteer firie. It is a tough and highly competitive process to get through to become a career firefighter, because it demands physical strength and fitness, intelligence, problem solving skills, compassion and, quite frankly, a lot of guts.
Most members here would know a firie. I appreciate there are many people in this parliament who have worked alongside firies performing their duties for Territorians in their former careers and who have experienced firsthand some of the horrendous situations like road traumas, rescues and, of course, fires. Firefighters and their families know every day they go to work they could be exposed to life-threatening situations. Ultimately, it is their job to put their lives on the line to save lives, properties, and our environment.
A day in the job could mean fighting a house fire, a bush fire or an industrial fire, responding to a car crash, or cleaning up a chemical spill. All of these situations have their own hazards, and while our fire fighters are well trained and equipped, danger is a constant factor. They are exposed to dangerous materials, smoke and carcinogens that can lead to cancer.
Australia has long lived with the threat of bushfires and we have tragically seen some awful situations unfold in Victoria and Tasmania in recent years where we have all watched and heard about the horror firefighters had to go through to protect others.
An extreme example of what firefighters are put through, and one we would all vividly remember, are the images of 9/11 and the response of the New York firefighters. They were straight on the scene and in the Twin Towers trying to save people which, ultimately, cost so many of them their lives. For the months to follow they continued to work on-site which exposed them to all types of hazards and, as a result, many of them are now left dealing with health issues.
In the Territory, we know our firies and volunteer firefighters are up against it every year, especially in the Dry Season and in the long, hot dry summers of Central Australia. Because of that, it is widely recognised that people who fight fires are more likely to contract certain types of cancers as a result of performing their work.
Extensive work has been done federally and in other jurisdictions as part of their rationale for proceeding forward with presumptive legislation. In July 2011, the Senate referred the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection for Firefighters) Bill for an inquiry and report carried out by the federal Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee. Chapter 2 of that report went to the science of why presumptive legislation for firefighters is backed by medical research. The report stated:
- The science underpinning this legislation is pivotal to its justification. The committee received as evidence a large amount of the research that has been conducted into the link between firefighting and cancer. These studies were used to inform this report and are all publically available. Given the quantity and quality of evidence presented, the committee is confident that a link between firefighting and an increased incidence of certain cancers has been demonstrated beyond doubt.
- … the presumption established by the bill is based on numerous scientific studies which indicate that fire-fighters are at greater risk of developing certain types of cancers because of their increased exposure to hazardous materials. On this basis, there is a strong argument to put in place measures that will make the process of applying for compensation less onerous for fire-fighters who contract certain types of cancers.
This is about reversing the onus for the firie dealing with cancer to have to pinpoint where in their career, often spanning decades, they contracted cancer while performing their duties. This is important, given they would have attended hundreds of situations where they would have been exposed to factors that could have contributed to their cancer in their many years on the job. However, if the employer, the Territory government, believes the firefighter’s career did not contribute to the cancer then they can rebut it. They can put their case forward and appeal the claim, so there are avenues in that regard.
The plain fact is, if a public servant develops cancer as a result of their job then they should be taken care of within the workers compensation system. There should be care for them given they have been struck down with illness due to performing their duties to the benefit of Territorians. This bill is an acknowledgement of this fact and aims simply to take some of the pressure off the workers compensation process so that sick firefighters can focus on fighting cancer without the added stress of fighting with insurance companies.
Last sittings, when I sat in this Chamber and listened to the member for Fong Lim, the Deputy Chief Minister, respond to the introduction of this bill, I was left feeling very disappointed with how he handled it. With a gallery filled with Territory firefighters supporting this bill, including long-term members battling cancer, he did not even give them the opportunity to speak to the government directly about why they think this bill should be passed before indicating he would reject it.
He did not have the grace to adjourn it, to organise to meet these firefighters and hear them out and consider the bill before he outright rejected it. Instead, he said he found the introduction of this bill to be ‘shameful’ and said it ‘smacks of politics’.
Introducing a serious bill like this is not about playing politics; it is about doing the right thing. In my view, if the government votes against it, then that is truly the shameful act. This bill is fair; there is nothing unreasonable here. I understand the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act is being reviewed. That is fine. The government could easily support this bill now, with or without amendments, and make things easier for our firies who are battling cancer right now.
In the second reading speech for the Workers’ Compensation and Injury Management Amendment Bill introduced into the Western Australia parliament recently to put presumptive legislation in place for their firefighters, the Western Australian Attorney-General said:
- It is important to be aware that the proposed amendments do not create a new right to claim; nor do they change the benefit structure under the Workers’ Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981. The bill is shifting the burden of proof of the cause of the cancer from the cancer sufferer to their employer or insurer. It will still be open to the employer or insurer to rebut the presumption if it can be proved by them that the firefighter contracted the cancer in some other way.
This is, effectively, what this bill for the Territory firefighters does. It is practicable and workable here, just like Western Australia. The only thing stopping it now is government support. There is no good reason for the government not to support this bill. We have legislation ready to go right now. There is a precedent for this type of legislation. Regarding the firies and the government stance, the member for Fong Lim said during last sittings, and again today, that he is sympathetic to their case. Then, why not support this legislation now? It could be passed today. I support this legislation because it is the right thing to do.
I conclude my comments with another extract from the second reading speech on the introduction of presumptive legislation in Western Australia. It reads:
- By introducing presumptive laws, the government will ease the burden placed on firefighters who perform a dangerous and life-saving role for the community. I hope this legislation goes some way to alleviate this stress of contracting cancer so that firefighters and their families can focus on recovery.
Madam Speaker, this is exactly what we are trying to do. It is disappointing that the government will not act now for our Territory firies and will not support this bill today. I thank the member for Fannie Bay for bringing this important bill forward.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of the member for Fannie Bay’s private members’ bill which seeks to amend the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. I thank him for bringing the bill before the House. I also thank and acknowledge the firefighters and their family members and advocates through United Voice who are also here in the gallery this evening witnessing this debate.
This bill is a genuine commitment to recognise that, by virtue of their work, firefighters are exposed to a much greater risk of developing certain types of cancer because of their exposure to hazardous materials; therefore, this should be recognised as work-related by rebuttal presumption and further recognising this presumption is based on scientific evidence, as outlined by the member for Fannie Bay.
If successful, the bill would entitle the firefighters, who also fight cancer, to compensation. I note legislation such as this exists at the Commonwealth and Tasmanian level and is being looked at in other jurisdictions.
I said ‘if successful’, but that has been wiped, given the contribution from this one member of the government, the member for Fong Lim, and his appalling grandstanding in the last sittings. In true and typical style, the member for Fong Lim slapped down the bill from the member for Fannie Bay on 28 August without even taking the opportunity to read and consider it, let alone discuss it with his Cabinet colleagues to arrive at a considered and informed position. To take debate straight to political posturing and to accuse the opposition of playing politics, in front of members of the fire service and their families in the public gallery, was not only embarrassing, it was shameful. It will remain, for me, one of the low points during my service in this Chamber.
Firefighters – whether they be employed, auxiliary, or volunteers – serve across the Northern Territory, so news of the debate on 28 August attracted interest, including from people in the Nhulunbuy region. The following week, it was on the front page of the Arafura Times where, at the lower half of the page, the headline read, ‘Tollner turns his back on Firies’ – a story, I add, not fed to the Arafura Times by me. That interest was sparked not only because of the appalling behaviour of the member for Fong Lim, but because our OIC at Nhulunbuy, Colin ‘Snogga’ Snowden is battling cancer. The member for Fannie Bay, in his contribution on 28 August, spoke of Snogga and his 17 years of dedicated service and his battle with testicular cancer and secondary cancer to the lungs and bones. He quoted Snogga in his contribution in the last sittings:
- Who will rescue the rescuer?
Firefighters put themselves between the public and any threats, sometimes to the detriment of their own wellbeing …’
Not present in the gallery that night, on receipt of the news back in Nhulunbuy, Snogga was quoted in our local paper, as per the paper I have just shown members, as saying:
- … although he was disappointed by the government‘s early verdict, he was sure that a commonsense decision would eventually prevail.
‘We are here to serve and protect, so I’m sure this bill will eventually come to fruition.’
I first met Snogga in February 2009, not long after he arrived in Nhulunbuy. It was at a major fundraiser following the bushfires of 9 February 2009 which had ravaged parts of rural Victoria. The loss of 173 lives in those bushfires, not to mention hundreds of homes and businesses, might have been higher if it were not for firefighters. Here was this bloke on his day off, along with his colleagues, volunteering to help raise funds for those in Victoria. His family was not with him but back in Darwin. I remember telling him he needed to get his family across to Nhulunbuy because there was no better place to be in the Territory. He agreed. I am not sure of the exact time frame, but Snogga’s family did move to Nhulunbuy – his wife Alison or Ali, and their three terrific kids, Jai, Marle and Coby.
What I did not know was Snogga had been diagnosed with cancer. He is in remission, I am pleased to say, but as anyone knows when it comes to cancer, the shadow of cancer is ever present. For Snogga it is a lifetime of taking a regime of anti-cancer drugs as well as routine blood tests to check the cancer has not returned. It is all part and parcel of his life. It is also part and parcel of his family’s life. They live and breathe this as well.
I had a long conversation with Ali earlier today and I thank her for sharing more of their story with me, ahead of me wanting to speak in the Chamber tonight. I tried to phone Snogga at the station but he was off today. He was out fishing, good on him. The journey for the whole family has been a very tough one, and Ali spoke about moving into survival mode and how she looks back now and says, ‘I was drowning but did not know it’.
She spoke about the financial burden, about going backwards when there is simply no money coming in because every minute of sick leave, long service leave, and annual leave has been taken. She talked about medical costs and what a blessing it was that at least part of a series of four injections at a cost of $7000 each was covered.
However, on top of the financial burden is the worry of holding the family together, supporting, as she says, the person battling for their life. This scenario is true for any family battling cancer. However, the scenario for the Snowden family is that their dad and husband acquired this disease through his work, through exposure over the course of 17 years to hazardous, deadly, carcinogenic materials and substances – 17 years in a job which is all about serving and protecting Territorians whilst putting oneself at risk.
Snogga’s battle with cancer has taken its toll on him and his family. Between August 2010 and January 2011, Snogga relocated to Sydney for treatment, not for the first time, but this time his family did not come with him because of the sheer cost of living away from home. During this period he had more chemotherapy, more radiation treatment and stem cell transplant. To be apart for treatment for six months is a tough ask, especially for stem cell transplant. Ali travelled to Sydney in January 2011 to bring Snogga home, but was struck by the toll the treatment had taken on her husband, the side effects of the treatment, and the fact it took months for him to recover fitness.
In fact, keeping fit remains a constant challenge for him in a job which, by its nature, is physically demanding, and all the more so when on a regime of prescribed medication with all of its negative side effects. Those six months Snogga was away from home receiving treatment in Sydney is time which Ali said is ‘six months, including a Christmas, they will never get back’ – tough for all of them but, especially, for three school-aged kids.
I was with Ali Snowden on the Nhulunbuy Primary School’s annual Canberra excursion in September 2011, both of us accompanying our sons in Year 6. What I did not know, until she got a phone call while the group was visiting the federal parliament, was that Snogga was in Sydney visiting his specialists and the news was good. In fact, the news was fantastic because he got the all clear. He was in Sydney, she was in Canberra with 60 kids and half-a-dozen parents and teachers, and the other two children were home in Gove when this news came through. It was a poignant moment to observe Ali get this long-awaited, though perhaps dreaded, call and, with it, the relief and tears that come with good news.
Madam Speaker, our firies need more good news. They need to know this government supports this bill to allow them to be rightfully compensated for a terrible life-threatening workplace illness. I commend this bill to the House and urge the government to give it their support, though any hope of that seems to have disappeared. This bill is not about politics, it is about people.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, first, I will start on a positive note, and thank the firefighters who have come along tonight to support their colleagues who have cancer, and those who may develop cancer. Obviously, this is a very sensitive and personal subject and the firefighters have continually shown strength in the support they have given their colleagues.
I also thank my colleagues for their support today, and the member for Nelson for his in-principle support of this bill. They were passionate and compassionate in speaking to this bill today and well-researched and well-reasoned in what they said about why we are here debating what is, we believe, a bill that provides a sensible, responsible, and human approach to the medical fact that firefighters are more likely to develop certain types of cancer. It is a medical fact, so it is a reality we, as an employer, have to deal with: the firefighters who work for us to protect our community are more likely to develop certain types of cancer.
Knowing the evidence is there, what do you do as an employer? How do you responsibly deal with the fact they are people working for you who are doing good works for others? How are you there for them? How do you provide support? It was a straightforward request from firefighters. It was a pretty simple request.
Firefighters are more likely to develop certain types of cancer. This is supported by medical evidence. Can their coverage under the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act be simpler? It is a pretty straightforward request. We, obviously, agreed to that as a party. We asked how we can make it simpler.
The words around what we do are not simple. We reversed the onus as a rebuttal presumption. Essentially, what this bill says is we will support you up-front. If you develop cancer as a firefighter, we will support you up-front. Through your treatment, as you meet consultants, as you go through chemo or whatever you have to do as you fight that cancer, you do not have to, at that traumatic time for you and your family, argue that you developed that cancer on the job. We will support you from day one.
The government, or the employer, has the ability to challenge that if and as they need to, which is why one of the things the member for Fong Lim said was a complete furphy. We believe we should be there from day one looking after the firefighters. We think that was a very straightforward, simple request.
There is a tragic double standard in the Northern Territory. If you are a firefighter at the airport you are covered. If you are a firefighter who does not work at the airport you are not covered. The Northern Territory firefighters should be covered.
The Commonwealth passed its bill in late 2011. It did the research the member for Wanguri referred to. It had its committee report, it looked at all the medical evidence, and it passed its bill. Tasmania has now passed its bill. If we were to pass our bill today we would be the third jurisdiction to have coverage. We might not be leading the way, but would be at the forefront. We are one of the first jurisdictions doing this so we are, in many ways, not in sync, we are ahead of the game in dealing with this issue.
The member for Fong Lim was asking why we did not do this in the year 2000. The Commonwealth did this in late 2011. The Chief Minister at the time, Paul Henderson, made a personal pledge to firefighters before the last election that we would take this on and do this. It was not a political issue. We did not run our campaign on it, it was just something we said we should do. The former Chief Minister made that personal pledge, and I was very happy to take on the work behind that as the shadow minister in this current term of government. We made a personal commitment we would do this for firefighters because we believe it is a very straightforward, simple request.
The member for Fong Lim today gave two practical reasons for not supporting this bill: the fact there is a review occurring, and the breadth of the legislation. We know neither of those are the real factors behind the lack of support for this bill because last sittings, before he had read the legislation or met with firefighters, he said he would not support it. He said it was shameful and smacked of politics. He said he could signal the government would not be supporting this legislation because it was about petty politics.
The firefighters know this is not about politics. We have been meeting with the firefighters. It was a personal pledge from the former Labor Chief Minister. There was no federal election campaign around this. It was coincidental timing that this bill came forward last sittings, two weeks before a federal election. It was pure coincidence.
There was no federal election campaign around this; federal firefighters are covered. There was no federal election campaign around this in the Northern Territory; it was pure coincidence. The firefighters know there is no politics here. They had a personal pledge from the former Chief Minister before the last election, which we were happy to pick up in this term of government. There was no federal campaign around this. This is a sensible, responsible, and human approach to the medical fact that firefighters develop certain kinds of cancer more than other people in the workplace.
The first time politics was brought in to this debate was when the member for Fong Lim said this was all about politics. We would be very happy to work with the government on this legislation. We have brought a bill forward. If they had amendments, we would have talked about them. We just want this done. I believe we have handled this in a very mature way. We have not campaigned on this in a partisan way. We have worked with the firefighters and brought forward this bill.
Despite the Deputy Chief Minister’s accusations of politics, our speeches today have still gone to the facts. This is about the medical facts: firefighters develop certain kinds of cancer, unfortunately and tragically, more than other members of the workforce.
This is a very straightforward bill. A similar bill was passed in Canberra with bipartisan support. That is the parliament of Australia’s committee research into the bill. If you ever want to know anything about the medical facts behind this, I can say what the Commonwealth parliament has pulled together is a very quick, handy way to get across most of it. We have obviously gone to other places and worked with the union quite closely around a degree of research. However, if you are listening to this debate and want to know more, I can recommend the Commonwealth parliament of Australia website. There is a number of links to medical research.
However, for the purposes of this debate, following on from the member for Fong Lim’s accusations, the Commonwealth parliament did this with bipartisan support. The member for Wanguri quoted from a Liberal government. Tasmania has passed this. South Australia has two bills on this in their Chamber. Both the Labor Party and The Greens have introduced bills on this. People want to look after their firefighters. In more than half of our jurisdictions in Australia this bill has either been passed or introduced and people are looking at how they can look after firefighters. There is no politics, this is a very straightforward issue.
To go to some of the practical concerns the member for Fong Lim raised, and I appreciate that the Leader of the Opposition immediately rebutted them all, which was good. It goes to show the ridiculous chaff that the Deputy Chief Minister put up. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for what she did to immediately put him in his place.
He went to breadth of this bill. We discussed the inclusion of volunteer firefighters with firefighters. We believe if you fight a fire you should be protected. That is the belief of the firefighters, so we looked at how we can include them in this bill. One of the important things, which the Leader of the Opposition has already said, is this bill does not guarantee compensation; it is not like there is free cash in this bill.
To begin with, if you have cancer, that is terrible; you do not want cancer. If you, as a volunteer firefighter, have developed cancer, that is tragic and you can be protected under this bill. If you have only attended one fire, there is an opportunity for government to challenge whether you developed cancer on the job. However, if you have cancer you should get our support. We will be happy to work with you on whether you qualify for that support or not. However, the protection should be there.
Talking to firefighters, they made some very good points about this: as a firefighter, especially if you go back 25 years, data was not kept on how many fires you attended. If you were to put some arbitrary statistics in this bill on whether you have to attend 30, 40, 50 fires or whatever it happens to be to be eligible for this compensation, then there could be firefighters who fail purely because data was not kept at the time. Data was just not kept about which fire you went to, and when and where you attended.
More to the point, what if you attended no fires? In training to become a firefighter or to maintain your professional standards you are constantly going into situations involving fire and dealing with hazardous material. It is part of your ongoing job. Whether you are called out to a fire or a spill or not, as a firefighter you are constantly having to maintain your skillset and work with situations that, while contained, present dangers. Firefighters have a tough job whether they attend a fire or not.
Where do you draw the line? If you are going to put the arbitrary test in, where do you draw it? We said, ‘Let us not draw a line’. Under this bill, as an employer you have the ability to challenge. So, why put in the arbitrary test of how many fires you have to attend? It may only take one. It is unlikely, but you never know. That is part of the problem about being a firefighter. You do not know what will be burning when you turn up. You do not know what is in that grass fire. You do not know when you go to a warehouse to deal with a fire what has been stored in that warehouse. You do not know, but you must turn up. That is your job. You have to put that fire out. You have to clean up that spill. You have to be there. You have to do it, but you do not always know what is burning. It may be just one fire, so why put that arbitrary test in? We are very comfortable with the breadth of this legislation and we genuinely discussed it with firefighters and amongst ourselves as a Caucus.
The member for Fong Lim said, ‘We are doing a comprehensive review. While asking the questions we cannot pull firefighters out of that review and do them separately and, therefore, consider them separately in this bill’. Well, the Commonwealth did it! The Commonwealth amendment was specific to firefighters. Tasmania did it. The Tasmanian amendment was specific to firefighters. In Western Australia and South Australia it is specific to firefighters. The Country Liberal Party’s approach is, ‘We have a comprehensive review. We cannot pull it out. We cannot do it separately. Sorry about that.’ Everyone else is doing it separately. We do not believe that is a reason to not support this bill.
The Deputy Chief Minister said this review may end with a draft bill in June next year. It may include firefighters and it may cover firefighters who already have cancer: ‘may, may, may’. We do not think that is good enough when we know from medical fact that firefighters develop certain cancers at a higher rate than the rest of the workforce.
I put it to the CLP that if they believe in the principle of this legislation, are putting this into their review and are going to bring forward legislation, if they want to act in good faith and demonstrate that good faith to the firefighters, they could sit down with the Territory Insurance Office now and sort out the cases of the four firefighters who have cancer. They could do that as a sign of good faith now while they worked through that review and the legislation, rather than leaving them hanging until who knows what and when happens.
Let us talk about that retrospectivity issue, which is something the member for Nelson raised. We considered that and the Leader of the Opposition said, quite rightly, ‘This is a difficult issue. It is not something you put into a bill lightly. It is something you do not usually put into a bill at all’. However, we know four firefighters are currently fighting cancer. It seemed to us ridiculous, silly, churlish and not sensible to not include them. Why draw a line and say, ‘You are out’? We thought it was very reasonable to have retrospectivity and include those four firefighters who are fighting cancer: Jock McLeod, Colin ‘Snogga’ Snowden, Tommy Lawler and Danny McManus. Let us cover them and include them. There is no reason why the CLP cannot act in good faith now and cover them.
To go to some of the member for Nelson’s concerns, you cannot join the fire service with cancer and be covered; you have to develop cancer on the job. Under the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, if you have cancer, you are covered. What we are saying is you should be covered from day one. A bunch of ex-firefighters with cancer will not suddenly stampede to access the provisions of this bill. It is a much harder process to go through at a very traumatic time for them and their families, but they can eventually get cover under the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. This is saying they should get support from day one. Ex-firefighters or firefighters who previously dealt with cancer have an avenue through this legislation.
Retrospectivity is not an issue here. This is about supporting the four firefighters in their fight with cancer, because it is very tough while dealing with cancer to go through a traumatic time with your family to develop the evidence, the file, the case study you need to take to your insurance company to be covered. We are saying we need to take that work off those people at a time that is very difficult for them. Let us take that from them because we know from the medical facts they are more likely to develop that cancer on the job than not. Let us reverse the onus; let us make a rebuttable presumption and take that workload off them. We do not believe retrospectivity is an issue because it is not an undefined risk; it is a defined risk. It is four firefighters who have cancer and developed it while doing their job for us. It is a simple principle: should we cover them? Yes, let us do that.
I had that conversation with the member for Nelson. He was open to the conversation. As he just asked, ‘Government, can you find a way to cover those four people while you are doing this review and legislation? Let us not kick them out. Even when you bring your bill forward next year, if you do not have retrospectivity in it we should look at how we look after these four people.’ The member for Nelson’s heart is in the right spot and, hopefully, with him, Labor can work with the CLP to finally get this bill somewhere.
Unfortunately, we will not get this bill passed today, which is very disappointing. The reason the CLP does not want to support it, as they explained to us last sittings, is they believe it is political. That is a poor conclusion to reach. We have handled this in a sensible and responsible way and it is based on medical fact. This has not been a political process and that is an appalling reason. It is a disappointing reason to not support a bill which will provide support to people who have cancer.
It is regrettable that is the decision of the CLP government on whether they support this bill or not. They made that decision before they read the bill and met with firefighters, when normal convention would have you adjourn the bill and read it. To make that decision on the floor with the firefighters in the gallery was a very poor approach to a bill. There are centuries of convention that say you adjourn the bill and talk about it, you do not jump to your feet and make that statement. It was a very poor way to handle the bill. This is not about politics.
We will keep working on this issue. We have the review process we can work through, and we will see what comes forward from the government eventually. It might include firefighters, it might not. We will do our best to ensure it includes firefighters, the detail of the bill does not exclude people, and it covers you. That is our pledge now. We have done our best today, but it does not end today. We will continue to see what we can do for you.
The Assembly divided:
- Ayes 8 Noes 13
Ms Fyles Ms Anderson
Mr Gunner Mr Chandler
Ms Lawrie Mr Conlan
Mr McCarthy Ms Finocchiaro
Ms Manison Mr Higgins
Mr Vatskalis Mr Kurrupuwu
Mr Vowles Mrs Lambley
Ms Walker Ms Lee
Mr Mills
Mrs Price
Mr Styles
Mr Tollner
Mr Westra van Holthe
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Future of One Mile Dam, Knuckey Lagoon, 15 Mile and Aboriginal Communities in the Darwin Region
Future of One Mile Dam, Knuckey Lagoon, 15 Mile and Aboriginal Communities in the Darwin Region
Continued from 27 March 2013.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, this debate goes back to March. I must admit the system for getting motions through on General Business Day can be a pretty long and drawn out. Luckily, we have brought it up today because it was raised in parliament during Question Time.
One of the things that disappoints me is the government’s attitude since I put this motion forward as an attempt to have bipartisan support to bring about changes in our Aboriginal town communities. They are called town camps, and to me it is a name that is really out of date. We have to try to move on from that. These places have good housing in many cases. They have some poor housing too. They have some social problems, but real people live on those communities. That is my problem with what is happening.
I asked the Chief Minister some questions today. I was alerted to issues by Bernie Valadian, who runs the Aboriginal Development Foundation which has leases over most of these sites - not Bagot, but One Mile, 15 Mile, Knuckey Lagoon and the Adelaide River communities. He rang me and said he was being asked by the Larrakia Nation, through LMPA as a mediator, to sign over the leases to Larrakia Nation.
I was surprised this was happening because we have a motion before parliament which the government knows about. The government has set up a task force, which I agree with in general but believe they left some things out. Here is an attempt to get some bipartisan support from parliament to ensure we move together to improve the lot of those people living in these communities.
After talking to Mr Valadian, the Chair of the Aboriginal Development Foundation, I received a letter which basically said two members of the public service would attend a meeting at Finlay’s on 30 September and would also be part of the discussion at 15 Mile and Knuckey Lagoon. The letter came from Larrakia Nation and the meeting was to be held at those communities with Larrakia Nation.
I have been told – and I thank the Minister for Community Services – the person, whose name I did not mention in parliament today, was not part of those discussions, and it was the senior policy advisor for the Indigenous MLAs who was dealing with this issue. What concerns me is if that is the case, there is still a government representative. I wanted the Chief Minister to answer the question about what the role of this person is in relation to this issue. The letter clearly advised me that at this meeting at Finlay’s, the public servant would relate the NT government’s position on Special Purposes Leases 454, 463 and 578, which I presume are the One Mile, Knuckey Lagoon and the 15 Mile. I am asking the government what is its intention?
There is no doubt there are issues. I covered those issues in my opening remarks to this motion. There are basically three groups involved in the operation of these communities: the Aboriginal Development Foundation, which owns the leases, Yilli Rreung Housing, which maintains the housing, and Larrakia Nation which does the maintenance work in the communities and provides some other services. I am not taking any sides from that point of view.
I have said time and time again — I will go right back to March, reading from the Parliamentary Record – at the beginning there should have been consultation with the residents of those communities. They are the people who live there. Many of them have lived there for many years. What appears to be happening is consultation between government and one of the parties, with the intention of getting another party to hand over its leases so the Larrakia Nation can have ownership of those communities. Guess who has not been involved in the discussions until – you might say – three-quarter time? When the government and Larrakia Nation are 10 goals in front, now the people have been invited to join in the discussions. Their chances of being heard or winning this debate are pretty remote.
I reiterate that the government should not be going down the path of taking sides in this. It should be facilitating a community-driven task force that looks at a range of issues, not just the issues the Minister for Community Services spoke of in a media release recently saying, ‘We have nothing to do with land leasing, we only deal with community services’.
I was hoping the government would not start to split up the task force. We heard the minister today say, ‘There is a task force being run by the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment’. The Minister for Community Services said, ‘We have a task force looking at community services’. Then, we find out there is another person who is negotiating with Larrakia Nation. Instead of a one-off task force dealing with the whole range of issues – even if the government decided to get an independent facilitator then we could have dealt with this issue in a holistic manner.
There are issues of governance which are not dealt with by any of these task forces: that is, giving people ownership of their communities. At present, we have some people who are ‘unelected’ leaders of those communities. My concern is that while people are unelected they do not always hold sufficient legitimacy for people to feel they are their true representatives.
A year-and-a-half or so ago I met a large number of people – I have their signatures here – who were concerned about violence on one of those communities. You could immediately see they felt they had no real say in that community. They had come together as a group, but what was lacking was an opportunity for those people to make some rules about how their community should be managed. That is an area this task force does not seem to have covered.
There is the issue of leases. I do not have a problem with the department of Lands if it wants to look at the technicalities of the leases, but I am not sure who the Department of Lands and Planning is talking to. What is the basis of their discussions? I do not know. I mentioned today that I was not allowed to be part of any of these discussions. The member for Namatjira, who used to be the minister, as an aside, said ‘You are a politician’. That is true, but all I ask is whether I could be an independent person able to look at what was going on without being part of those discussions.
I was just looking for the letter I wrote to the minister. I wanted to know why I could not be an independent observer at these meetings. These people are my constituents. If the government is doing deals here and there, that should be out in the open. It would not hurt for someone to be there to keep an eye on what is happening so we can see where the government is heading and to ensure those people who should be part of these discussions are included in them.
When you look at the list of people involved in the town camps – this is what came out when the government decided to have what they call a Darwin Town Camps Taskforce – the members were the Australian government Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA); Northern Territory government departments of Regional Development, Indigenous Advancement – that department has gone – Housing, Lands, Planning and Environment, Treasury and Finance; the Aboriginal Development Foundation; Bagot Community Incorporated; Gwalwa Daraniki Association; and Larrakia Nation. I understand Larrakia Nation pulled out.
Information in the media from the Minister for Community Services mentioned that Yilli Rreung was part of this discussion. In fact, they were put in as part of an industry reference group. I am told that industry reference group has not met, and Yilli Rreung has not been part of any of these discussions.
My concern is it seems we now have a multipronged attack on this process. I ask the government to seriously consider bringing these task forces together and involving the people who live there. Do not say to me their representatives are there. When you look at those names, I do not believe some of those people are representative of people at the 15 Mile and Knuckey Lagoon. You need to hear, if you are conducting a proper task force, about the issues involved in these communities. You need to hear from the people who live there.
Talking to the minister today, I know she would like to get some names. I will get those names for her. I feel, from working on Aboriginal communities in the past, that sometimes the people who are missed out are the most important people. Many times it is the women – not in all communities, but sometimes it is the women because the men speak up and people say, ‘Thank you very much’, and that is it. The women are the backbone of some of these communities; they give stability to many of these communities, and they need to be asked what is happening. I will explain why I say that.
When I heard there was a move by Larrakia Nation to ask the Aboriginal Development Foundation to hand over their leases, I spoke to some of the women in the morning because their kids were away. I spoke to about six or seven women and asked, ‘Would you like Larrakia Nation to take over this community?’ They said straight out ‘No’. It was as plain as day. I cannot guarantee that is a scientific cross-section of the community, but it was pretty straightforward. I did not need to have a debate about it.
What worries me is someone in government is going down this tangent, there is another department going off on another tangent, and another department is going off on another tangent.
I hoped this would be a positive motion that would bring people together to sort out their differences, to look at ways in which the people’s lives could be changed and improved and kids could get to school without some of the problems they have on those communities with some of the social issues, especially around drinking and violence. Some of the issues which could be looked at could be how ownership or leasing of houses could be improved; ownership of the land, and whether all the land and houses should be owned by one person; whether people have the right to buy their houses; whether local councils provide municipal services and whether roads become part of the local council, as has happened in Alice Springs.
Some of that debate has already occurred in Alice Springs over the years. We have not had that debate and we seem to have reached the point where we have no vision about these communities. No effort is made to look at how we can make things better. We have stagnated with the old, ‘she’ll be right, mate’ approach.
I am disappointed with the Chief Minister today, as he did not answer the question. The Chief Minister was asked a direct question, did not answer it and threw furphies such as, ‘You had the option as the kingmaker’. When they say that, I know they have no argument because it is a furphy. People know what my motives were about my position in the last government. When people throw that around I wonder what they are hiding.
I asked a simple question of the Chief Minister about intentions regarding special purpose leases on these communities. The Chief Minister did not answer and threw things flippantly back at me with a laugh and smile, instead of answering a serious question I asked on behalf of the women I was talking to the other day. To some extent, it reminds me of the joke about only so many people signing the petition the Opposition Leader brought forward. You can be smart by half sometimes, but the reality is this is a serious issue. If the Chief Minister has people out there doing things he should be able to at least give an honest answer in parliament regarding the government’s intentions.
I believe the government has something to hide, otherwise, they would have answered this question. They would not have distracted with silly things about what I did and did not do in my past life in this parliament. Unfortunately, the Chief Minister forgot to say I moved a similar motion with the previous government for the very same thing. That was developing, but a certain matter called an election came up and changed things.
I appreciate – and the minister for Lands and Planning is here – there are some difficulties in relation to the leasing of these areas. You cannot take someone’s lease away even if you think it would make a better proposition if someone else owned that lease. That lease is a legal document. The person or persons in a group that owns that lease are entitled, if necessary, unless they do it voluntarily, to fair compensation if the government wishes to take those leases back.
I am not denying that the matters we are talking about are not easy. All I was hoping is we could ensure when we had this discussion the people who will be affected by the decisions the government will have to make at some stage are being informed at the beginning: that we hear what they want. We do not go off to a particular group and say, ‘Sorry, fellows, but they are looking after the place now. I know you have lived here for 20 years. Too bad.’ I do not think we are treating people correctly if we do that.
I ask that if both the Minister for Lands and Planning and the Minister for Community Services are using a task force they give a commitment that people who live in those communities will be part of the task force. I know there will be some technical issues the government might want to look at, and I do not expect the technical side of matters to be dealt with. However, if they are starting to talk about ownership of these communities, then those people should be on them as well.
I will ask again, even though the previous minister laughed at me, if I could be an independent observer, where possible, at some of those meetings. It is not to be a sticky beak, it is because I have a genuine belief that these people need a chance to have a better option. When I asked whether I could be an observer, the then Minister for Regional Development laughed at me, and this is the answer I received:
- Should you seek any matters to be considered by the task force please address your request to my office and, if appropriate, I will ask the task force to consider the issue.
Talk about being far away from reality! It is like ‘If we feel like it we will let you know’. That is pretty sad. My intention was to ensure that to some extent the task force was involving local residents and listening to what they had to say, and that matters were being discussed with people on the ground who knew what the issues were. There are many issues in those places. You will note the task force did not even include the councils of Palmerston, Litchfield or Darwin. If you are to have discussions about community services, you would think it would be basic to include councils in the group of people involved.
Lastly, I am disappointed that somehow, for some reason – the government could probably explain it to me one day – Yilli Rreung housing is not involved. I mentioned they are not on the task force; they are in some reference group. You would have thought the main body that maintains the houses, that has to collect the rent, regardless of whether you think it does a good job or not – I have heard various people say they do not like Yilli Rreung, Larrakia Nation, or the Aboriginal Development Foundation. Big deal! Yilli Rreung is a key part of these communities. One of the issues I have, of course, is if they want to kick someone out of a house they do not have a lease over, technically they can move them off the verandah, and that is it. They can stand on the dirt outside and go, ‘ah, ah ah’, and you cannot do anything about it. That is part of the reason I was hoping this task force would look at it.
If it is not looking at private ownership of these houses, then it will obviously look at a process of Aboriginal housing tenancies. To have that, you have to have a lease under the house as well as the house itself. At the moment, most of those houses, if they do not have a tenancy agreement, technically belong to the Aboriginal Development Foundation.
It is a complex issue. It is not something that will change overnight. I say to the government, I brought this motion before you in the belief you also believed these communities would get a fair hearing and be part of an approach by government that was not biased to any particular group. It could have facilitated discussions that should ensure the community came along with changes to that community which would make them better – better for those kids who have to sit up at night and listen to the fighting and the drinking, so those kids can get a better education. I do not think some of these places have improved, from a social point of view, much at all over the last umpteen number of years. I do not know how kids can ever get a decent education when it is very hard to get to sleep when you live in a place where there are such disruptions.
There are many good people in those communities. I meet the women from those places, and some of them are relatives of my wife and they know who I am. If you ask them what kind of community they want, they want a peaceful community. They want a place where their kids can grow up in safety. They do not want drunks, violence, or car accidents. They want to live like the rest of us.
The member for Johnston laughed the last time I mentioned this, but what a contrast you will see at the moment where Johnston is nearly within 100 m of the 15 Mile community. Talk about chalk and cheese! But that is the reality, and that is what has to change.
I will bring this up with the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment; he might be able to at least look at this for me. My understanding is – I might be wrong; I am not sure whether 15 Mile is on a sewerage system or septics – you have a ‘you beaut’ suburb built 100 m across the road. I am interested to know if any thought was given to hooking the 15 Mile up to the sewerage system. That would be a sign they are at least recognised as part of Palmerston, because they are within the Palmerston municipality.
Litchfield is a bit different; it mainly has septic tanks. However, the 15 Mile is a small suburb which is partly within the Palmerston municipality. I am interested to see whether the government has given some consideration to bringing them online. Perhaps the minister could take that up if he has a moment.
In summing up, I thank all the people who have made comments. I thank the opposition for its support in this debate. As the Leader of the Opposition said in her previous debate, she has been here a long time. I sometimes wonder whether I have not been here all my life. In some cases, I have been here longer than some people on the opposition have been alive. I have been around long enough to know these places have a long history.
Knuckey Lagoon was generally populated with people from Daly River. People I knew there have died. When we discuss these places, we also have to remember there is a history. Bernie Valadian can tell you about it better than I can. I also know it was a dry-out area for many people who came to town. Casey’s Store was up the road from Knuckey Lagoon, and Howard Springs pub was originally down the road from the 15 Mile. Belyuen people came across to the One Mile. Unfortunately, my nephew died about a year ago at the One Mile Dam.
These places have had a tragic connection for even people like me over many years. Things have to change, regardless of the history, because the next generation deserves better than the previous generation has dished out. I would like to give hope to all those people who are residents there who also want to change things. If we are to believe this government believes in open and transparent government and that we are open for business, then they need to ensure the people in these communities are part of that by being part of the discussions to make their life better, not by hiding the truth about what the government is doing, as the Chief Minister has done today. When he hides the truth, he insults the people of those communities.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Power and Water Price Increases
Power and Water Price Increases
Continued from 28 November 2012.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, when we first spoke of this issue last year, the CLP government had hit Territorians hard with their ill-thought-out decision to raise power prices by 30%, water by 40%, and sewerage by 25%. Since then, we have seen chaos, with prices coming down slightly, but set to rise again soon.
These increases have hurt Territorians and this next round of increases will hurt Territorians even more. They are causing great stress to Territorians. Power and water are essential services. We live in a harsh climate. We need to use air conditioners and pool pumps. We need to water our lawn during the long Dry Season.
Previously, I shared stories in this Chamber and tonight I share more stories. Through the past year, many Territorians have raised with me how the power and water costs are making it impossible to live. Power bills going up by hundreds of dollars with no change in people’s usage is not fair. People are struggling, they live week to week. Good people – childcare workers, teachers – are struggling with these power increases and I do not know how they are going to face another rise.
The increase in my bill was huge, yet we had no more usage. There was chaos with those bills. We received about three bills in two weeks. The first bill I could not make sense of, the second bill told us we are in credit, so I thought ‘lovely’, and the third bill showed us we were back at the point where we owed hundreds of dollars. It was chaos. I vaguely remember hearing the Chief Minister whinge about his power bill on the radio one morning. He is the one who caused this pain to Territorians. He is the one who caused this chaos – his government. Services such as childcare centres had to increase their fees. For the former Treasurer to blame the increases that were passed on from these power and water costs on their quality framework was appalling.
In the last year, many sporting groups, sports people, and people whose children attend sports have told me the voucher scheme does not go anywhere to covering the costs of increases to sport activities. Sports clubs have had to pay extra for water and air conditioning, with their power bills going up.
You told Territorians a year ago that it was better for us to have a 30% hit than two 15% increases. I remember at the time the debate was around the increases not being necessary. The harshness of 30% on people’s power bills is massive. You made chaos of that. At the time, we were lectured that 30% was better for us than two 15% hits. Our bills came back down 25% and are set to rise again. They came down to 20% and are meant to go back up to 25%.
Public utilities are essential services. Territorians need to have these services. Governments are meant to support their citizens, not cause them so much pain. As I said at the time, and I reiterate tonight, if you are really conscious of what you are doing to Territorians you would not have reconsidered this decision. The pain it has caused our fellow Territorians is unfair. Good hard-working people who want to have pride in their garden or be able to live comfortably, watch the footy with the air conditioner on, now think twice. That is not fair. The government should not do that to people. You question what you could have done to lessen the impact. How could you say things like that? Your government increased power prices.
It has been nearly 12 months since we first spoke about this topic in the House, but it is a good time to reflect as we have had 12 months to talk about it. We have had increases in place for nearly 10 months and we are about to head into the next increase phase which will bring the issue up again. We are heading towards Christmas. The weather has warmed up in the last few weeks in the Top End, as it has in Central Australia. This will come straight back to Territorians.
You commented at the time that you hoped people would forget, which really showed how out of touch you are. Territorians have not forgotten; they will not forget. They are reminded every time they use an appliance or an air conditioner, or try to cut their power usage, that the government increased their power costs by 30%, water by 40%, and sewerage by 25%.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I spoke at the time about how appalling this decision was. I still have that strong view. On behalf of the constituents I represent, I reiterate in the House that view has not changed at all and people have not forgotten. They have not become used to this awful mean-spirited increase in utilities this CLP government put on people.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, this has been held over for some sittings. I thank the member for Nightcliff for continuing her remarks in closing off this debate. It has been almost a year. In January we will see that first real Wet Season build-up and Wet Season experience where households already struggling financially with the cost of living feel the true and full impact of the price hikes brought about by the decision made first by the Mills government, then held onto by the Giles government in hiking up power, water and sewerage tariffs so dramatically.
I believe the current Chief Minister thought Territorians would say, ‘Thank you, we are saved’ when he dropped the power price tariff from a 30% increase to a 20%, albeit then loading that 10% back on from 1 January 2014. Territorians saw it as a very insignificant mercy. When they get their bills – on average, households are getting bill increases around the $1500 mark for the year – it is the cruellest blow of all. People are genuinely struggling.
We have raised issues of how this plays out and whether or not there is any consideration or fairness in how the government could go about it. For example, Power and Water has instituted a regime where you can only have one agreement to pay negotiation for a quarter. We have families struggling with their bills, they strike an agreement to pay, but are struck out once. They face utilities being cut off if they cannot meet their bills in the other quarters that roll through the year.
I predicted people would really struggle with that first bill. That came to fruition in the approaches I have had from people from all backgrounds, all walks of life, in all demographic areas of the Northern Territory. They have struggled in the major city, in our regional towns and, as we have heard, out bush where those all-important power cards were being chewed through at twice the normal rate. What we have seen is the government hell-bent on continuing to ignore the pain inflicted on the households and families, and very dismissive and arrogant in ignoring what the small businesses, which are really suffering under the burden of these increases in power prices, are saying.
They were highly dismissive of those corner supermarkets and what they had to say: people who rely on heavy refrigeration and cooling just to run their businesses. The arrogant dismissal of their concerns was appalling, to say the least. What we have is people not being able to pass on to the consumer the full cost of those prices in some of the industries at the front line which are doing it pretty tough through a fairly sluggish period. We have just started to see some pick-up in retail, and that is a good sign.
As I have been saying, the government does not want to hear it because if it is not to their liking they have cloth ears. However, we have a two-speed economy. We have the haves and the have-nots. The haves are those businesses which are doing exceptionally well off the back of the big dollars coming to this town courtesy of the private sector investment flowing out of that major project of Ichthys, courtesy of INPEX and Total’s investment in that project. We have some opportunities still flowing through the capital spend of government off the back of decisions Labor made on the Marine Supply Base.
Those things are great and they will underpin GSP. They are underpinning business confidence going forward, but they do not provide the bread and butter to the small- and medium-size enterprises which are on struggle street, which have downsized and reduced their staff and have gone on to reduce hours. These are some pretty decent sized medium firms I am referring to. It might be that it suits the government to think, ‘That is just the Leader of the Opposition saying what she feels like saying’ and ‘We do not believe her’ but, genuinely, I am constantly engaged with all the key industry organisations to keep my finger on the pulse of what is happening across the small- and medium-size enterprises. If you are not hearing the story of the twin-speed economy in the Territory and of the have and have-nots, I have to question why. Is it because they have just given up trying to explain it to you?
The reality is the power, sewerage, and water price hikes which have been embedded into the tariffs by the CLP – without a shred of evidence, by the way. There were no authoritative reports done on this. There was no regularity expert trotted out to say, ‘Here we are, here is the information where we have genuinely tested what percentage it should be.’ It was at a whim of the then Treasurer, followed up, and backed up.
You hear incredibly disparaging comments made about Power and Water by the current Treasurer, referring to the corporation as ‘fat, bloated and terrible’. There were disparaging comments on the work of the board, which was ultimately sacked at another whim of the current Treasurer. It was a very august board, I have to say, of both industry experts and highly-respected local businessmen with high levels of expertise. When they summarily and arbitrarily sacked that board, they did so without a shred of evidence as to why they should. That board had instituted a regime of efficiencies through Power and Water as an organisation and corporation when I was shareholding Treasurer, and it was yielding about $65m per year in savings. That is no small bickies in savings from one corporation. They were tracking on a pathway then of recasting and reconsidering the capital program which, of course, is where the bulk of the debt came from.
Again, it does not suit the government to have a genuine, factual debate on the debt of Power and Water. It does not suit the government to recognise that successive governments for two decades did not invest in the repairs and maintenance or the capital requirements of power, water and sewerage in the Northern Territory. Whether it was Power and Water or Power and Water Corporation, the genuine level investment required to maintain the networks, the generations, the water and the sewerage did not occur. R&M was running at very low levels. In fact, for a period of about three successive financial years under the previous CLP government, they took more in dividends from Power and Water than they put into repairs and maintenance. Of course, we had the consequences of, essentially, two decades of neglect, which caused the catastrophic failure of the Casuarina Zone Substation, with about 17 000 consumers offline. There was no ignoring that. No government worth its salt could ignore such a catastrophic failure.
We brought in an expert to do a thorough review. Merv Davies did it. The review laid out a program of repairs and maintenance investment, and capital investment for Power and Water which was followed carefully and endorsed by an august board of experts. All of that was done. At the time, in 2009, I shouldered a very tough burden of being the first Treasurer in the best part of two decades to increase tariffs above a CPI pathway. I did that for the financial – not commercial – sustainability pathway from Power and Water. Again, let us not let facts get in the way of the CLP furphy that Labor did nothing. Listening to them, Labor did nothing.
They opened the new Snell Street Zone Substation. The rank hypocrisy we saw through that period of the power tariff increases was unbelievable. Then they lauded the new zone substation opening, the Larrakeyah outfall closure, looked at the Weddell Power Station and lauded the Archer Zone Substation. There was media release after media release, media footage after media footage. Here was a CLP Treasurer saying, ‘Here is this great work we have done at Power and Water’, at the same time saying. ‘We have to carry this debt’. I do not know what they think it takes to build zone substations and entire power stations such as Weddell and replace and repair gen sets at Channel Island. I do not think there is a fairy with a magic wand it will wave and do all of that work without it coming at a cost.
The cost was not borne out in an expert report. There was no evidence when the CLP chose to increase tariffs. They did it on the back of some pretty nasty and misleading rhetoric around the state of Power and Water as a corporation. There are some very strong experts around, who, of course, are privy to what occurs at Power and Water. The board was sacked because it was deemed by the current Treasurer to be in the way of his plans. It has panned out. We have been saying for a while now in opposition that the government was moving to privatisation and moving to split up Power and Water into different entities. You could not get a straight line from the government on that one until – voil – on a Friday afternoon out went a media release – no evidence, no report, no authoritative terms on operational requirements and financial efficiencies. No, just a media release saying, ‘By the way, we are going to create some additional government-owned corporations and will split up Power and Water to create retail and generation’.
Again, the CLP government is very careful with its words, very careful to rule out privatisation. It will not rule out partial sale, selling Weddell Power Station, indeed, selling some aspects of the network, or selling the excess supply of gas Power and Water owns out of the Blacktip field. Then, flying in the face of logic, the Treasurer continued to bang the drum and say, ‘It is in dire financial circumstances. It is a disaster and is nearly bankrupt’. Then Power and Water purchased additional gas.
The Treasurer used these ridiculous descriptions of Power and Water such as ‘bankrupt and in financial dire straits’ as an excuse to hike up the power bills for consumers: some $1500-plus, to $2000 a year extra on their power bills. Thank you CLP, for breaking that all-important, ‘We will not increase the cost of living, we will reduce it’, election commitment. Put that aside, in they came, not with a media release issued, but media advice coming through channels that Power and Water had purchased 15 PJ of gas over 10 years per annum at Magellan. How much is that worth?
What a contrast, because when the Blacktip gas supply was purchased, the people were advised of the cost to the taxpayer. People were advised of the cost to the taxpayers when different phases of Blacktip rolled through when there was some failure and additional diesel had to be bought and burnt to ensure the sustainability of the power supply. At every turn, Labor in government was completely open and accountable on the cost to the taxpayer. Yet, here we have a very clear, stark contrast where the government – the shareholding minister, the Treasurer – would have to approve the purchase of this 15 PJ per annum of gas by Power and Water.
The Chief Minister would be in the room on the discussions on that. At the very least, you would expect it would have to go through Cabinet for sign off. Yet, they pretend it has nothing to do with them, it is just what Power and Water is over there doing, ‘Do not worry about that, we are not going to tell you how much it costs the taxpayer’.
What an extraordinary situation. They hike up everyone’s tariffs – consumers, the small businesses – to say, ‘You have to start paying off our debt’, then they decide to take Power and Water further into debt by purchasing gas. But, they will not tell you how much. Then they decided to split up Power and Water and create a retail government-owned corporation, a generation government-owned corporation, with the rest in the third, and say that will drive efficiencies. Yet, they will all have their own boards and corporate structures. How on earth is that efficient? It has not been proved to be efficient anywhere else in Australia when it comes to running a utility, particularly in the environment in which we exist in the Territory where we have a very small population and a requirement to provide those utility services over a vast geographical landscape.
It is little wonder that the Electrical Trades Union, whose members work for Power and Water, is running a campaign called ‘not for sale’. I encourage people listening to go to the notforsale.org.au/northern-territory site and read this. It has some really good information and facts around the importance of Power and Water in keeping the lights on. Power and Water has 1000 employees, including some 80 apprentices. It is our tax dollars that have gone into building and maintaining the infrastructure of Power and Water. It talks about us as Territorians owning the power, water and sewerage assets that provide these essential services to all Territorians.
On the question of essential services, did the penny ever drop in the minds of government that essential service means you cannot do without it? You need your hospital and schools, they are essential to your life. Government provides essential services. When you think you can run essential services of power, water, and sewerage in a jurisdiction of the vast geographic landscape of the Territory with a small population and small numbers of businesses at a commercial profit, the thing that gives and hurts, which is hurting Territorians now is the power price hikes. Tariff increases hurt Territorians. You are pricing Territorians out of the Territory when they get their bills.
I will never forget that Channel 9 interview the then Treasurer, the member for Araluen, provided when Jonathon Upton looked at her after she announced the tariff increases and said ‘But aren’t you worried that people will vote against you at the next election over this?’, and she smiled and she said ‘Oh no, they will forget after two years, that is what we are counting on’.
What an extraordinary admission: that this is about a quick political cash grab and fix, and do not worry, everyone will forget about it when they go to vote at the next election. We saw the vote result in the Wanguri by-election, where 70% voted against this CLP government. In the Solomon election result there was a very strong seething anger still, even though it was not a federal issue but a Territory issue. There was a strong, seething undercurrent of anger towards the CLP over the power price hikes. People walking into polling booths saw the power price hike posters. They were there for a reason. We were hearing loud and clear from our community about how angry they are at how much they are being priced out of their homes and the community they love by these cruel tariff increases by the CLP – implemented without evidence or an informative, qualitative report that goes to why they are doing it.
In the ‘not for sale’, it talks about what has occurred in states and territories around Australia - South Australia, Queensland - where you have privatisation and public ownership. It talks about the extent of the assets Power and Water own. I encourage people to read it because it is around the facts. The facts go hand in hand with common sense: when it is managed properly it is cheaper; it is about service before profit; it is safer for workers and the public if controlled by the government we elect; and it provides job and training for regional communities.
These fundamental aspects of Power and Water have been torn up as the CLP goes along. The splitting up of Power and Water is the latest step towards privatisation. I have deep, real and genuine concerns about where tariffs will head with the CLP. They have already gone up 20% for power and 30% for water and sewerage. We know it will go up another 10% on 1 January. We know the Treasurer did not want to remove 10% when the carbon tax goes, but he was shamed into it on a backflip the day after the federal election when the federal member for Solomon, Natasha Griggs, got her hooks into him.
Beware Territorians! The issue of power price hikes is only part done by this government. They are hurting us every day with the tariff increases. Now there are splitting up Power and Water, and I have deep and genuine concerns about what that means for price hikes going forward, because this government does not seem to give a damn about what they inflict on Territorians.
The Assembly divided:
- Ayes 9 Noes 12
Ms Fyles Ms Anderson
Mr Gunner Mr Chandler
Ms Lawrie Mr Conlan
Mr McCarthy Ms Finocchiaro
Ms Manison Mr Kurrupuwu
Mr Vatskalis Mrs Lambley
Mr Vowles Ms Lee
Ms Walker Mr Mills
Mr Wood Mrs Price
Mr Styles
Mr Tollner
Mr Westra van Holthe
MOTION
East Point Heritage Preservation
East Point Heritage Preservation
Continued from 5 December 2012.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, this is one of those debates where, unfortunately with the way the Notice Paper works, if they come up for debate and run out of time, they end up down the bottom of the pile. Maybe that is something we need to look at to see whether that can be improved.
This motion is very important. In opposition, the member for Fong Lim had some words of support for the development of this area. I welcome the member for Fannie Bay bringing this matter to parliament. I do not think this issue has gone away. For those who may be wondering what I am talking about, this motion is about protecting Ludmilla Creek, the mangroves around Ludmilla Creek, and part of the foreshore of East Point.
As people might know, there were some plans some time ago by developers to turn Ludmilla Creek into a marina. Of course, there are marinas and there are marinas. The standard marina is a bit like the Duck Pond where you want to have a safe haven for boats. However, these marinas are not simply that. You could build a marina anywhere without destroying all the mangroves. This type of marina is a housing estate, and is similar to the housing estates you see in some parts of the Gold Coast.
I always laugh a bit because they are always promoted as ‘great lifestyle, a fantastic place to live, a marina with access to a canal and out to sea’. Of course, the only people who benefit from those are the people who live on the edge. Everyone else could have lived in Whoop-Whoop; they would not even know they lived on a canal. You only have a limited number of people who can live on the water. The rest are only part of a suburb that might have a fancy name like Ludmilla Haven or Blue Ludmilla, or Ludmilla Lagoon. I can see it now. Yes, it was Baygon Haven, now it is just Bayview. You can do many things with names and selling points. You can convince people this is the Northern Territory open for business. However, do we have to be that blinded by development we do not look to the future of our beautiful harbour?
One of the things I have always said is, ‘Why can we not be a little unique?’ We have plenty of land to develop. If someone wants a canal estate, run your canal through to higher ground and dig it out. You will destroy about 100 m of mangroves and that is it. If people like that kind of lifestyle, that is well and good. A development requires a large number of mangroves to be destroyed. You have to remember mangroves are unique, not only because they live on a difficult part of our planet, somewhere between high tide and low tide in a salt water/fresh water environment – they are not found everywhere. I came from Victoria a long time ago and my mother comes from an island called French Island. Many prisoners used to go there because it was penal colony once. There is only one species of mangrove around French Island, in Western Port Bay.
In the Northern Territory we have far more species of mangroves. It is something we should be proud of because (1) of the biodiversity and (2) that close to where we live, we have a breeding ground for so much wildlife, especially the aquatic life that many people love about the Darwin Harbour. Fish do not drink water and get fat; they live off all sorts of funny little creatures. Many of those funny little creatures live amongst the mangroves. What is so nice about Darwin is you can go up to East Point and to the Nightcliff jetty, and you can throw a line in ...
Mr Vatskalis: That is nothing.
Mr WOOD: What do you mean nothing?
Mr Vatskalis: I have done that. Nightcliff jetty is not a good place to fish.
Mr WOOD: Okay. I am talking in very general terms, member for Casuarina. We will put in a Palmerston jetty. I do not know if the member for Brennan has time these days to fish down there. The Palmerston jetty is a pretty good jetty I must admit, and it is very popular.
We would not be able to go out into our harbour and catch fish if we did not have such a food supply that you get from the mangroves, along, of course, with all the other animals that rely on the mangroves. It is not only fish, but long bums, mangrove worms, crabs, and birds which live there …
Mr Kurrupuwu: Mangrove worms.
Mr WOOD: I have not eaten a mangrove worm, member for Arafura. I have never been brave enough. It reminds me of a piece of intestine full of soil. One day I will acquire the taste. Long bums I have had. They taste like gristle but at least they are a lot nicer than mangrove worms ...
Mr Kurrupuwu: Vitamin C.
Mr WOOD: The member for Arafura would know the importance of mangroves too. Right where Nguiu is - I will remember the other name one day - there are plenty of mangroves that are not only habitat, but they protect the coast. People forget that. If we get a cyclone, those mangroves give us some protection as well. They actually bind that part of the coastline together.
Ludmilla Creek is part of our mangroves. Any move to turn that into a marina is just thinking of the 1950s and 1960s. We have moved on from that. We are not short of land in the Northern Territory. The population of the greater Darwin area is approximately 125 000. The area mass in the Northern Territory is one-sixth of Australia. We are so short of land we have to bulldoze the mangroves away and put houses on top of piles of gravel and mud? It just seems an incredible effort and an incredible waste of our environment.
I also raised this issue because I do not believe the new government has given up the idea of damming the Elizabeth River. I was talking to someone the other day – I will not say who it was, but he is involved in real estate. They raised the issue of a small weir on the Elizabeth River. Do we not love the small weir? We are not short of land. Weddell has lots of land. If you want to build a lake, dig a big hole in the high ground and put salt water in it. At least you will not destroy the mangroves.
Sometimes people, especially in the political side of government, need to do some research themselves. Look up some of the websites on the importance of estuaries. There has been a lot of work done, I think through the Griffith Institute of Technology. There is a group, CRC, that studies the importance of estuaries. Anyone who would block the mouth of an estuary has to have rocks in their head.
It is being done to get rid of the sandflies and have a nice recreational lake. However, you destroy the river. In the case of Elizabeth River, what happens in the Wet Season? All the little creatures go upstream as prawns and little things breed up there. If you have ever done Waterwatch you will find some of these things in creeks, even Mitchell Creek. I have done Waterwatch testing in Mitchell Creek and there are many little prawns. Come the Wet Season they are all washed downstream. Also, barramundi go upstream. You can catch barramundi further up Elizabeth River. You can catch barramundi on Thorak Road or McMillans Road where Knuckey Lagoon feeds out. You can catch barramundi on the street next to me, Barker Road, on the culvert. All these creeks and estuaries that feed into our harbour are important for the lifeblood of the harbour.
If we start to muddle with it because someone sees dollars signs, and that is how it is done somewhere else and it is nice, then we are devoid of a real appreciation of what is so special about Darwin. At present, except perhaps for Sadgroves Creek, we have not destroyed too much of the mangrove population of Darwin Harbour. Yes, we lose a bit here and there. We have lost some with the East Arm port, we lost some with ConocoPhillips, but only a limited amount, and we will lose some with the development of INPEX. However, you will notice those big companies understand the importance and have tried to build their developments around the mangroves rather than destroy them.
One of the issues the government will have to consider is that they are talking about a port at Glyde Point. The previous government took Glyde Point out of the equation. Much as I do not believe they made the right decision, they said they were conserving that area. They were not because they did not turn it into a conservation zone; they turned it into an open recreation zone. The issue of concern to people about the development of Glyde Point is when you look on the original plans the CLP put out, a large expanse of mangroves was destroyed. If we are to look at that area again we have to do it with a bit more nous, a bit more intelligence, and a bit more respect for those parts of the environment we treasure and which are important to the ecology of the area. We have to look outside the square and not do everything with a bulldozer, but in recognition that there are parts to be retained. The member for Fannie Bay will have a few words to say.
I support this motion. One of the problems you have with a new population coming into Darwin all the time is they do not understand the importance of the mangroves. It would be good for the government to promote the benefits of having mangroves in our harbour, and why they are important.
We had a protest meeting at the university some years ago when the government was going to dam Elizabeth River. I cannot think of the lady’s name, she worked for the Darwin museum. She was a professor who had studied Darwin Harbour for years and years. From her knowledge, I was able to get a list of all the aquatic species they knew existed in Darwin Harbour at the time. We were able to cover all the walls of the theatre at the university with pictures of every aquatic species that frequented Darwin Harbour to show people how important the harbour is.
It is not about just looking at a little thing and saying, ‘Oh, that is Ludmilla Creek’, it is about looking at the bigger picture. It is about asking, ‘What do you think is special about Darwin?’ To me, if we can keep our natural environment intact as much as possible, live with it not in it, as some people want to, then we will have a city we can be proud of. We might have tall buildings and rows of flats. I hope the minister’s ideas about getting a bit of greenery in there come to fruition, but one thing we can retain is the natural environment and that will make our harbour beautiful. Our future generations, if we retain that natural environment, will thank us very much for doing that.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this motion.
Mr CHANDLER (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Mr Deputy Speaker, there are a few things about which I probably agree with the member for Nelson. It is important to acknowledge how important mangroves are in our harbour.
Only a few weeks ago I spent the evening on a boat with a number of environmentalists, professors and others from CDU Environment Centre. Margaret Clinch, Stuart Blanch, and a number of other people were there. We went into Ludmilla Creek. In fact, we left the port and cruised around to the sewage outfall to see the effluent bubbling into the ocean. I am sure we were there longer than we needed to be, but it gave an impression of what goes into our harbour. We spent several hours cruising around the Ludmilla Creek area, seeing the bird life and, from the perspective of the people on the boat, how important Ludmilla Creek was to them and to others. It is vitally important we do what we can to preserve our environment.
I looked behind me when I was on the boat to ensure there was not a plank, because I told them that I could be out there the following night in a boat full of developers who would have a completely different perspective of that area. There was no plank, and they understood where I was coming from.
I thank the member for Fannie Bay for raising this issue. Darwin’s strategic importance on the north coast of the Australian continent means it has a dominant position with expanding potential and real opportunity to lead economic growth in the region. Modern-day demands have led to the development of East Arm Wharf and, of course, the Marine Supply Base, and the need to consider the strategic position of a second port for industrial purposes. In addition, the harbour is highly valued by Territorians for an outstanding range of recreational activities.
Although many assume there is a sizeable scope for urban expansion, this is incorrect. Compared to other major seaboard cities in Australia, Darwin’s available land footprint for urban and regional development is severely limited. An important planning ingredient is to accurately audit what you have to work with. A proper framework is required to demonstrate where industry is based and where new adjacent residential areas will be located where people will work, live and enjoy their recreation.
In 2006, former Chief Minister and former member for Fannie Bay, Hon Clare Martin, released a policy entitled Creating Darwin’s Future – a Tropical Harbour City. You would remember it, member for Fannie Bay, you were working as an advisor at the time. Let me read the headlines under the key themes. They were: Recreation and Lifestyle; Tourism and Heritage; and Development Catering for Rapid Residential Growth.
You might ask what has changed since 2006. The need for housing has changed; it has become far more urgent. The former Labor government did not keep up with new housing choices to match industrial expansion.
The member for Fannie Bay’s motion is completely erroneous. He claims these special places are at risk under the CLP’s new Planning Commission. They are not at risk. No country, state, or territory can afford to create a planning vacuum.
Let me provide a definition of a vacuum. It means a space absolutely devoid of matter. The member for Fannie Bay, sadly, displays this situation himself as far as planning credentials are concerned. He noted in the House on 18 February 2010 the following:
- Businesses in CBDs need a variety of workers, and can struggle to find workers if people cannot afford to live in the city.
I do not believe we are there yet in Darwin, but the warning signs are there ...
That was nearly three years ago and Labor did nothing. Labor did not grasp that there had to be a cultural and social change to accommodate an increasing population. Instead, there was a political vacuum.
On May 17 2011, approval of the Ichthys project was given. The former Labor government’s media release reads as follows:
- Environment Minister Karl Hampton, has advised Planning Minister Gerry McCarthy that the environmental impacts of the planned INPEX development in Darwin can be managed within acceptable limits.
Similarly, before work commenced on the new Marine Supply Base close to Hudson Creek on reclaimed land, backfilled bund ponds and harbour foreshore, extensive environmental studies were undertaken. This was all under the former government. A detailed environmental management plan stipulated what further monitoring had to be done during the project.
The following statement was noted within the East Arm Wharf expansion project. In the EIS it said:
- Based on experience with the existing development, it is expected that mangroves will probably recolonise the rail loop shoreline within a few years.
In the case of the approvals stamped by the former Labor government, they must have decided the decisions were worth making in the following instances: in order to develop ConocoPhillips at Wickham Point, INPEX at Blaydin Point; and the Marine Supply Base opposite Blaydin Point, together with – from the government’s Wishart Business Precinct Master Plan – access corridors through the adjoining mangroves to harbour waters to encourage the development of port, barge, and oil- and gas-related industries – not forgetting the mangroves that were removed for the East Arm boat ramp, the pontoon and, of course, the parking bays.
My government will be highly diligent in its duty of care of Darwin Harbour. No government can turn its back on projects around the harbour, whether they are residential, recreational, commercial, or industrial. They all have to come together to enhance our lifestyle and bring prosperity to the Northern Territory. Initiatives have to be put in place that utilise science and technology to keep pace with industrial and economic change. There has to be an ongoing discussion and awareness of community aspirations and expectations. These include aspirations and expectations of the many Territorians who want coastal walks and recreation areas, cycle paths, running tracks, a safe berth for their boat, and housing choices including waterfront homes or apartments with a marine view.
An example pre-Cyclone Tracy was the plan to transform Rapid Creek from Trower Road to the mouth of the creek into a lake, hence the name Lakeside Drive in Alawa. Urban opportunities were planned, a rowing course mapped out for the then Darwin Community College, and the entire area was chained and mangroves cleared. Very few remember it now, as the lake did not proceed. However, despite the clearance, plus damage from the 1974 cyclone, the 1979 Dwyer report entitled Rapid Creek Recreational Project noted:
- … the mangroves are regenerating well with eleven species recorded and density, diversity and growth are recovering well ...
I draw the attention of the House to the comments made by the member for Fannie Bay on 17 September 2008:
- I spoke about more parks, free buses, better bike paths …
…
Better outdoor dining options – and more of them – to take advantage of our great harbour is what we need.
There are imperatives to be considered for our harbour that must not be dealt with on an ad hoc or shout-the-loudest basis. Land use around Darwin Harbour must take into account risks including storm surge mitigation, insect breeding, drainage, and regeneration of mangroves. Research comes online all the time and should be taken into account, not shelved and ignored. Of particular concern are the events we witnessed in last October’s graphic coverage from New York and the eastern seaboard of the United States and the dreaded impact of the storm surge due to Hurricane Sandy.
On 5 November 2012, Justin McGar writing for an online publication DesignBUILD Source stated:
- Leading engineers say sea barriers similar to those found protecting some of Europe’s major cities could have prevented much of the destruction suffered by New York City.
The early-stage proposal for New York is a similar levee-like barrier that would span eight kilometres across the mouth of the harbour. It would have the capacity to prevent or stop a surge in excess of nine metres, twice the height of the surge produced by Sandy.
Our cyclone seasons hold the same potential for disaster. Everybody remembers Cyclone Tracy, but the 1937 cyclone also packed a significant punch. The Review of NT Cyclone Risks, Appendix F, stated that:
- Estimates made from anecdotal evidence of the storm tide at Fannie Bay produce levels that are significantly higher than the inundation levels indicated by a surge risk report commissioned by the NT government.
The review also noted that harbour seas were described as phenomenal.
Let me share this account from the Big Blow Up North: a history of tropical cyclones in Australia’s Northern Territory by Kevin Murphy:
- During the height of the cyclone huge seas were running in the harbour. Waves were crashing over the cliffs at Myilly Point and at Fannie Bay. ... Eyewitnesses claimed that the sea inundated the road to East Point and also the golf course.
This is now part of Lake Alexander.
Coastal erosion issues continue and must be addressed. I draw members’ attention to the report entitled Coastal Erosion Issues in the East Point and Nightcliff Areas of Darwin. This was prepared for the Darwin City Council by the Centre for Regional Climate Change studies. An excerpt reads as follows:
- Tropical Cyclone Tracy, for example, which passed directly over Darwin in the early hours of Christmas Day 1974 produced a 4 m high storm surge on Darwin’s northern beaches. Fortunately, the storm surge occurred during neap tides and inundation of buildings did not occur ...
The report also noted:
- There is evidence that although the average recession rates are not extreme, from time to time parts of the shoreline could recede by 5 to 10 metres over a period of weeks.
The reports long-term recommendations noted:
- … there would need to be more study of wave conditions to allow preliminary design and costing of coastal engineering solutions.
The report went on to outline one of the major options:
- This scenario involves designing and constructing a boulder wall along parts of East Point and Nightcliff to effectively protect the cliff face from the ocean and enhanced wave erosion as sea level rises during the rest of this century. Whilst this is clearly an expensive option it should be seriously considered with Northern Territory government involvement since the most vulnerable site highlighted in this study was the serious erosion at Nightcliff, close to roads and residential apartments.
My department has an important role to play in the consideration of all of these issues, as does the Planning Commission. The issues will not be ignored in the hope that a storm catastrophe never eventuates. The Top End is not immune and must plan ahead. Continuing a mantra of negativity and of filing challenges in the too-hard basket does not make those challenges go away, as the former Labor government is surely noting to its cost.
The science of tropical cyclone knowledge and behaviour continues to evolve. The member for Fannie Bay is nave to simply demand that parliament must safeguard the ecology – important mangrove areas of Coconut Grove. Mangroves are important, but safeguarding residents should be on an equal footing, if not higher. There has been a sizeable body of work undertaken on coastal zones, marine environment, weather, mangrove issues, and on mangrove coasts and wetlands. Every year, further science adds to our knowledge base.
The paper published by the Australian National University North Australia Research Unit entitled Coastal Management in Northern Australia summarised within its introduction, as follows:
- As an objective, conservation must be viewed not only as a way of retaining what we have but also for creating what we want.
That is why, as a responsible government, we have to plan, research, and reassess all aspects of living and working around Darwin Harbour. We need to co-exist and ensure that when we decide where people live, we do it properly, and when we decide where to conserve, we do it properly.
Whilst in opposition, we saw that proper planning was a critical element of good government, but we are sadly lacking in the Northern Territory. It was why the Country Liberals committed to such effort in the 2010 discussion paper, Planning for Greater Darwin, a Dynamic Harbour City, which stated the following:
- Historic Darwin Harbour is our city’s most precious asset … loved for the lifestyle it provides for the more than 100 000 people living in suburbs and communities along or close to the coastal edge.
…
Increasing numbers of Territorians share this passion for coastal living, in line with their enthusiastic use of their local harbours, estuaries and river systems.
If I turn the clock back to the initial days of the previous administration, I find that on 20 August 2002, the Labor government tabled the 2002-03 Northern Territory Budget Papers that included the following announcement:
- A Plan of Management will be developed to monitor and protect Darwin Harbour, and an Integrated Coastal and Marine Management Policy for the Territory will be developed at a cost of $200 000. This includes establishing a community based Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee to develop the plan and oversee its implementation.
- If a harbour management plan fails to recognise that the future of the harbour must be considered as only one of many threads in the fabric of constraints and opportunities for future development of the Darwin Region, its effectiveness in achieving the desired outcome will be limited.
Five years later, Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee minutes from 2008 noted:
- Discussion was held about Government’s long term planning and the rapid industrial development proposed for the Darwin Harbour Region. Concern was raised that Government lacked a long term strategic plan and that development would be ad hoc.
A year ago, their newsletter, dated December 2011 stated:
- DHAC continues to push for a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for the Darwin Harbour region. A SEA should underpin the land (and water) use planning for the region.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the former Labor government did nothing. There is no doubt in my mind that the newly-established Planning Commission is a vital component for the long-term strategic planning of the Northern Territory, and that strategic planning has to define our template for the future in every regard. Far from the special places of East Point, Coconut Grove or Ludmilla Creek being at risk from the Planning Commission, the current opposition has left us with a legacy of failure to plan at all, yet another issue our government will resolve.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the members for Nelson and Nightcliff for their support in this motion. The member for Fong Lim confirmed where we have always known he stands on these issues. It was quite interesting to hear the minister speak, and I might have to go back and re-read some of what he said. There was quite a lot of detail in there. However, as carefully as I listened, I was not sure after he finished speaking whether East Point is actually safe or not.
As an opposition, and as a government, the issue on which we have always stood is that great cities have special places. Darwin is a great city; we want Darwin to remain a great city. East Point is a special place, and we believe it should be safeguarded.
There are many reasons why people love living in Darwin, but East Point is our special place. Other cities around the world have their individual sites which make them stand out. I believe, for Darwin, East Point is what makes us special.
At the end of all that, I take the minister on his word that the Planning Commission will be looking after this area. I believe we still need to pay close attention to what happens, because there were a few caveats all the way through that speech. We believe East Point is a special place for many reasons – heritage, environmental and lifestyle – and it should be protected and preserved.
The minister made a comment on process. It is important to establish that the first step in building something is having the permission of the landowner. If someone wants to build something at my house, they need my permission. Before you rezone, or consent to development, you need the permission of the landowner.
We followed proper process. We did not give permission for construction of anything on East Point. As a government, we went through the Cabinet process and very clearly said, ‘This is where we stand. East Point is a special place’. We gave a bunch of other reasons as well as to why we wanted to protect East Point. The number one reason for me was that it is a special place. Proper process is permission of the landowner first, so that is what we did. Did we as a landowner, at that time as government, give permission for something to be built at East Point? No, we did not.
Where does the current government stand? We do not know. They are saying, ‘We have a Planning Commission and we will consider all options’. As a government we made it clear, and as an opposition we are making it very clear we believe East Point is a special place.
I was not quite sure where the minister was going with his partial slap there. I did not quite understand it. He talked about my previous comments that we need housing in Darwin and to ensure we do not price people out of the city. I completely agree with that. Within my ambit as local member for Fannie Bay, and working closely with the Treasurer, the Planning minister and the Housing minister at the time, I championed the mixture of affordable public and private housing at Wirrina. We increased the density and put more units on that site and created the mix. It was the first time we had done that in the Territory.
It was good to have the minister opening it. It was one of those things when governments change hands. The minister, in his previous role as minister for Housing, opened that site and made some very good remarks about how this was a model with affordable housing and a way of not pricing workers out of our inner city. I would love that to be a bipartisan approach. We should be trying to find ways on government land, because it is easier on public housing sites, where we can provide affordable mixed housing to ensure people are not priced out of the market.
In some respects, it was a trial at Parap. I am happy with what has happened there. It has been up and running for a while now and people living there love it. That was my approach in my limited ambit as member for Fannie Bay, working with what was a great government at the time. I am looking at a couple of the ministers who were there right next to me, the former Deputy Chief Minister and Treasurer and the former Planning minister. That was one of the approaches we took, a trial to find a way of dealing with the pressures that could come on people living in the inner city.
We believe you have to go through proper planning processes. We believe you have to think about how you prioritise housing and not price people out of the market. The minister, in his previous role as Housing minister, had favourable comments on that. I am interested to see what he does as a Planning minister in that area.
This motion is about saying great cities have special places. Darwin is a great city, we want Darwin to remain a great city, and we believe East Point is a special place and should be protected.
After hearing the minister’s remarks we need to pay close attention to what is happening through the Planning Commission with East Point, but I am willing to take the minister on good faith. I am happy to talk to him any time about issues in my electorate and East Point. We believe East Point is a special place and should be protected.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am happy to commend the motion to the House.
The Assembly divided:
- Ayes 9 Noes 13
Ms Fyles Ms Anderson
Mr Gunner Mr Chandler
Ms Lawrie Mr Conlan
Mr McCarthy Ms Finocchiaro
Ms Manison Mr Higgins
Mr Vatskalis Mr Kurrupuwu
Mr Vowles Mrs Lambley
Ms Walker Ms Lee
Mr Wood Mr Mills
Mrs Price
Mr Styles
Mr Tollner
Mr Westra van Holthe
MOTION
Country Liberals’ Election Promises
Country Liberals’ Election Promises
Continued from 13 February 2013.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, there has been a great deal of debate on the broken election commitments by the CLP government. We have tabled a document. There are about 100 broken election commitments in that document. The government has not responded to show that in any way they are keeping any of those 100 broken election commitments. More to that, there was a commitment from the current Chief Minister – we know the numbers are being crunched feverously over there – that they would provide in the public realm the contracts signed across the bush communities that were not costed election commitments but part of the reason why they find themselves in all sorts of financial strife for the billions of dollars of unfunded commitments sitting on those contracts. They are hiding their bush commitments, not meeting them ...
Madam SPEAKER: Opposition Leader, can you please pause. Member for Fong Lim, if you wish to have discussions with your colleagues, could you go out in the lobby please.
Mr Tollner: Certainly, Madam Speaker.
Ms LAWRIE: They have a list of 100 broken election commitments, but nothing screams more loudly and clearly of how morally corrupt the government is than this. At Gunbalanya School in the electorate of Arafura, they are losing five teachers under the teacher cuts. They are losing two teachers in primary school, two in middle school and one from secondary school. They have already lost two teachers with the formula change in the last financial year. So, five teachers are going and they have already lost two.
These losses make it the case that they will not have a specialist ESL teacher at Gunbalanya. This is a school where English is their second language. No ESL specialist teacher for Gunbalanya under the teacher cuts at that school, two primary teachers going, two middle school teachers going, and one senior school teacher going – five teachers from Gunbalanya School in the electorate of Arafura. I do not know what the member for Arafura will do to save those teachers on behalf of his community.
Madam Speaker, we will be expecting to see some leadership.
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Establishment of New Bulk-billing Super Clinic
Establishment of New Bulk-billing Super Clinic
Continued from 20 February 2013.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, I have spent quite a bit of time in the past few years arguing for the establishment of the super clinic. There was much argument when we initially established the Palmerston Super Clinic. Finally, AMA changed its mind because it saw the potential for training new doctors there. Then, we argued about the establishment of a northern suburbs clinic. Now, we hear the government is opposing that. But, lo and behold, just two weeks ago, one of the most reputable institutes in Australia said there are not enough GPs in the Northern Territory; they are not attracted here for various reasons. As a result, Territorians are missing out on bulkbilling services and, of course, Medicare.
There is not much point in me arguing about it. The government is determined not to support a super clinic. It is sad that the Minister for Health will let Territorians pay quite a deal of money to see a doctor, if they can see a doctor because there are not many in the Territory. I do not know about Alice Springs, but there are not many in Darwin. I found that out recently with this flu outbreak where people had two to three days wait time to see a doctor. We need more doctors in the Territory.
The Palmerston Super Clinic has proven the program works very well and efficiently. From what I hear, the people in Palmerston only praise it. It is about time this government bites the bullet, goes ahead and works with the federal government to establish something we desperately need in Darwin, a super clinic especially in the northern suburbs.
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Homelands in the Northern Territory
Continued from 15 May 2013.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I believe when the debate came to 9 pm on 15 May 2013 I had a few minutes remaining so I want to quickly recap – and what perfect timing.
We had the Homelands Extra Policy of $5200 per eligible household in homelands and outstations announced on 2 May by the member for Namatjira, the former Minister for Regional Development, saying, ’This money is available from today’. Then that got pushed out to, ‘Oh, it does not actually start until 1 July and, by the way, you have to fill out a really complicated four-page form to do it’.
I asked the question today of the new Minister for Community Services, who is responsible for this area of homelands policy, and she could not answer exactly how many Homelands Extra grants have been distributed to residents. This is now her opportunity in the debate. She can take the floor and respond to the statement I commenced on 15 May 2013.
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Condemnation of Prime Minister by the Legislative Assembly
Condemnation of Prime Minister by the Legislative Assembly
Continued from 21 August 2013.
Mr TOLLNER (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I have to support this motion introduced by the member for Arafura because fundamentally it is a good motion. However, I have to say it has probably been trumped by the Australian people who have shown the door to Mr Rudd ...
Ms Walker: Why does the member for Arafura not speak on it?
Mr TOLLNER: Clearly the member for Arafura introduced the motion. He might want to hear some debate on it, unlike members on the other side who are only interested in gagging debate …
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: That is right, all you are interested in is gagging debate. You would not want to talk about super clinics anymore with our Health minister. No, you stand there, rattle on incoherently, make no sense at all, and will not entertain the thought of allowing the Health minister to talk about super clinics because you know she would do you like a dinner and we will make you look completely stupid.
Similarly, the Minister for Community Services never gets to speak on homelands because the member for Nhulunbuy …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! A query on process. The member who put the motion on the Notice Paper has not moved the motion. There cannot be a debate unless the motion has been moved, and the member for Arafura has not moved it. He should have been in the Chamber tonight moving the motion.
Mr TOLLNER: It was introduced, Madam Speaker, and moved on 21 August 2013 ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, please pause. The member for Arafura indicated he was bringing the motion so he needs to speak first to the motion.
Mr TOLLNER: It is resumption of debate.
Madam SPEAKER: No, the member for Arafura needs to speak to the motion. He introduced the motion for GBD. He needs to speak first and move the motion. The motion has not been moved.
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! It has been moved. He gave a speech in general business …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, please pause. I will double check.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, while your Clerks are checking, we can advise we have checked the Hansard records for the 28th and there is no movement of the motion from the member for Arafura or, indeed, speaking to moving the motion. Your Clerks are still checking, obviously.
Madam SPEAKER: Opposition Leader, I will await advice from the Clerks.
Ms FINOCCHIARO: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Our advice is the member for Barkly was the last person to speak on it and the motion was adjourned during his contribution to debate.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, you have the call.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, the sieve-like memory of the Leader of the Opposition is on display. It is the same memory that cannot recall projecting out $5.5bn of debt, or the time she could not recall calling her own electorate a war zone …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 62. The member is being offensive. I know he likes to be offensive but the comments he is attributing to me about my electorate I did not say, never have said, never will say. They are offensive and I ask that he withdraws.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, could you please withdraw the comments with regard to the member for Karama’s electorate.
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw, Madam Speaker. It does not excuse the fact she has a memory like a sieve, trying to pull political stunts and mislead the parliament in some way or other. Yes, jump up again if you have a glass jaw …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, withdraw that comment please, misleading parliament.
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw, Madam Speaker. She is made of sugar, that girl over there. It is all right for her to get down in the gutter, but as soon as any one draws attention to her failed memory …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, withdraw that comment as well.
Mr TOLLNER: What comment was that, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: Reference to the gutter. Withdraw the comment.
Mr TOLLNER: I withdraw the comment, Madam Speaker. It is all right for her to throw personal slurs and denigrate everybody in this Chamber. Any time the opposition sees itself in a bit of bother you pull a personal attack ...
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I find the member for Fong Lim offensive.
Madam SPEAKER: What is the standing order?
Ms FYLES: Standing Order 62. The member is being insulting. The Leader of the Opposition asked a reasonable question. We are going through a lot of old motions tonight; there have been many wraps in debate. There was a misunderstanding ...
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. He has withdrawn the comment. He made no other offensive comments.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, the truth hurts the other side. You are all a little sensitive to the truth. That is obviously the reason you are trying to change the processes of parliament. No one seems to remember the member for Arafura introducing this bill. We have all forgotten Kevin Rudd already, have we? That is a bad memory that has fallen through the sieve no one recalls anymore – air-brushed out of history like the carbon tax. The Leader of the Opposition said, ‘No, we all support the abolition of the carbon tax’. Yes, right. We really believe that one, don’t we?
A couple of months ago, the Opposition Leader, the member for Karama, was banging on about how good the carbon tax was. This was the greatest moral challenge of our time back then, as I recall. Now, all of a sudden, they are supporting abolition of the carbon tax. I would like to see that in print somewhere rather than mumbled across the Chamber, but you will not come out at that one.
The thing standing in the way of abolition of the carbon tax is the Labor Party. At the first sittings of parliament, I am sure if the Labor Party said, ‘Yes, we will support abolition of the carbon tax’, Tony Abbott would introduce a bill to abolish the carbon tax.
Of course, the Leader of the Opposition has no authority in the Australian Labor Party and cannot direct anybody in Canberra. Canberra’s job in the Labor Party is to direct the Leader of the Opposition. That is why she is hiring someone from Canberra; she has been told to hire someone from Canberra. The fact is Canberra does not trust the Leader of the Opposition. That is the untold story of the last few weeks. It is not so much the member for Fannie Bay having a bit of a challenge. The fact of the matter is, Canberra Labor does not like the Leader of the Opposition ...
Mr McCarthy: Together we are coming after you, Dave. Just remember that. Whatever it takes.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: Here we go, here we go. Now they are coming after me.
Mr McCarthy: And your mob. Come on, bring it on. We will get whoever we can.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: You are going to get whoever you can?
Mr McCarthy: That is right.
Mr TOLLNER: They are going to get whoever they can and they are coming after me! Oh! And who are you going to get?
Mr McCarthy: You are second in charge.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: I am just wondering who you are going to get in order to get me?
Mr McCarthy: A political scalp.
Mr TOLLNER: Oh, a political scalp! We have probably had enough of offering people outside today, so let us not talk about political scalps …
Mr McCarthy: That is right. That is what it is about.
Mr TOLLNER: I am not that full of hubris that I do not think my time is not coming to retire from politics, but it is not now, member for Barkly ...
Mr McCarthy: Do not retire, Dave, stick around.
Mr TOLLNER: It is not now. It is not happening in the immediate short term, I can tell you that right now – touch wood. Who knows what the future holds?
The fact of the matter is the member for Arafura introduced a fantastic motion on 21 August condemning Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and his federal Labor government for misleading the people of the Tiwi Islands and breaking their promise not to introduce a carbon tax, raising the cost of living for Tiwi people and all Northern Territory families, increasing the cost for Tiwi Islanders and threatening business opportunities, and putting jobs for Tiwi Islanders and all Northern Territorians at risk.
That sums up Kevin Rudd and the federal Labor Party in a nutshell. I put it to this Chamber that also sums up the opposition when they were last in government. They put everybody else behind themselves. Political expedience came before anything else. You only had to look at the way the Opposition Leader managed the books.
We have had debates in this place about education and the fact we have had the worst educational outcomes in the country under the previous Labor government. Their response was to throw more money at it. As my friend and colleague, the Minister of Education, informed this place the other day, education spending rose by 46%. Teacher numbers rose by 20% under the Leader of the Opposition’s watch as Treasurer. Guess what happened to outcomes? They went backwards. They spent a whole lot more money, put on a whole lot more teachers, and outcomes went backwards.
Here they are, memories like a sieve, they forget all that. They say, ‘Oh, no, you cannot change the way things were going!’ You were a national disgrace and embarrassment to the Northern Territory! We had the worst educational outcomes in Australia, and you want us to maintain it! Goodness me, how pathetic an opposition are you? There is $5.5bn in projected debt and you are up us because we do not keep spending. Goodness me, you were lumping debt on to future generations. Your member for Casuarina, in his budget reply, said, ‘We had to go in debt. We needed teachers, we needed nurses, we had to pay all these operational expenses.’ They were borrowing money to pay operational expenses. The breached their own FITA …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, the time has now come for adjournment.
Mr TOLLNER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will complete my comments and say what a disgrace the opposition is. How proud I am of the member for Arafura ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim! Your time has expired.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Note Statement – Alcohol Mandatory Treatment
Continued from earlier today.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Alcohol Rehabilitation): Madam Speaker, I will conclude the comments I started earlier, and had to suspend through the commencement of General Business, on the alcohol mandatory treatment statement.
The Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Program is three months into its life, and very soon we will be undertaking a review of that program. We promised after six months we would undertake an extensive review consulting with stakeholders and interested parties. After the end of December we will commence that process, and we look forward to people contributing to that. There was much interest in the consultation process before we commenced the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Program, and I am sure that interest has been sustained. What I am seeing is that some of the critics of this program are now becoming supporters and that is good news for the Territory and for the poor souls in our community who are suffering from chronic alcohol abuse.
In the meantime, between now and when that review starts there will be some changes to how we go about this business. I will not preempt exactly what they will be, but to wait six months at least for the review to start and probably seven or eight months before the findings of the review come out or are available to us is just a little too long for some of the aspects of the treatment program and the rehabilitation initiative to not be tweaked, changed, and improved. We will be making those changes public as we establish exactly what they will look like.
The good news, though, is the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Program is working. Anecdotally we are hearing there are fewer people on the street affected by alcohol. That will come as a great shock and surprise to the members of the opposition who are fixated on making the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Program seem a failure. But, no, we are hearing very good stories from the treatment providers that people undertaking rehabilitation are making changes in their lives. They are enjoying the program. Most of them are staying on without any fuss, and are not absconding as the opposition would have you believe. They are participating in the program and I am convinced and very optimistic the outcomes of the review will be very positive.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
ADJOURNMENT
Mrs LAMBLEY (Acting Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I will be very brief tonight. I wanted to make a point of clarification for part of an answer I gave during Question Time today.
During one answer I was talking about the banana industry and indicated that the Northern Territory’s banana industry was worth $400m. I want to correct that. That was, in fact, Queensland’s banana industry. The Northern Territory banana industry is worth something in the vicinity of $11.4m. That is just to correct the record.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I will talk about issues around Tennant Creek and the Barkly.
The Chief Minister, Hon Adam Giles, advised parliament that Tennant Creek was experiencing the highest rate of property crime, violent assaults, and alcohol-related offences, including domestic violence, in the Northern Territory. The release of crime statistics after 12 months of CLP government confirmed violent assaults and domestic violence offences had doubled in 2013, with property offences down across the Territory but higher than ever before in Tennant Creek.
Adam Giles flagged his concerns about Tennant Creek’s dramatic increase in crime in this parliament, citing the Barkly Australian Rules football competition bringing young players from remote communities into town as the problem. Then, with complete ignorance, he advised parliament this practice had stopped.
The Chief Minister, Hon Adam Giles, blamed rising crime rates in Tennant Creek after 12 months of the CLP government on the Barkly Australian Football League, completely ignoring the that CLP scrapping the Banned Drinker Register, with twice as many violent assaults now occurring and domestic violence and property crime rising faster in Tennant Creek than elsewhere in the Northern Territory.
In Nhulunbuy, problem drinkers are banned from buying alcohol and crime is down. However, when the Banned Drinker Register was scrapped by the CLP, word reverberated through to the Barkly that grog was back on in Tennant Creek where the takeaway sales represents 70% of our alcohol sales. Hon Adam Giles’ solution for Tennant Creek was to establish an Office of the Chief Minister.
However, I offered an alternative of how the CLP should spend their newfound cash, demanding the Chief Minister visit Tennant Creek and talk with police, the women’s refuge, BRADAAG, and education providers to invest in what works. I reminded the Chief Minister his government had ignored the Barkly petition submitted in parliament for sports and recreation infrastructure and bush camping grounds in the growth towns of Ali Curung, Elliott and Borroloola, supporting regional development in the arts, festivals, conventions, regional school sports and possible Australian Football League home and away games. I highlighted CLP broken promises for regional economic development in the bush that smacks of ignorance and bad advice from Liberal mates focused on spending millions of dollars on a main street Chief Minister’s Office to hear about the issues in Tennant Creek.
The Chief Minister, Hon Adam Giles, needs to acknowledge his policy settings for governing the Northern Territory are failing. With the CLP promising to cut crime by 10% each year; however, assaults are up by 11%, domestic violence up 15%, with total Territory-wide crimes against a person rising 36% higher than 2008.
The Territory Labor opposition identified budget savings for the CLP of $5m for the scoping study of Palmerston hospital, $3.6m for scrapping the shires, and $9m allocated to the Chief Minister’s Department in Budget 2013-14.
Tennant Creek does not really need a Chief Minister’s Office on the main street to listen to the issues; it needs further investment in community safety, health, education and regional development. It needs to return to Labor’s Enough is Enough alcohol policy, and a government which will listen. Sacking public servants, cutting health and education budgets, hiking power, water and sewerage charges, reducing the infrastructure budget, scrapping alcohol policy, and jobs for the boys represents the CLP governing the Territory, however, is not what is needed for Tennant Creek and the Barkly.
I draw the House’s attention to Hon Adam Giles’ media release, ‘New Economic Vision for Tennant Creek’. This relates to his visit to Tennant Creek. On 3 October 2013, he issued this media release which starts with:
- Chief Minister Adam Giles today confirmed the government’s commitment to economic development in the Barkly with the opening of a new regional office of his department in Tennant Creek.
‘The County Liberals want to do everything they can to re-energise Tennant Creek and the opening of this new regional office of the Department of the Chief Minister is an important step’, Mr Giles said.
When pressured on ABC radio about the cost and the newfound cash to open this office, the Chief Minister responded with, ‘Come on, Rowan, it is just two salaries, a desk, and an office we already pay for’.
I found that to be totally offensive. First, the Chief Minister is telling the constituency what a great idea it is and how it will develop the economy of our town and region. He then runs it down with a comment of, ‘Come on, it is only a couple of salaries, a desk, and an office we already pay for’. I question the Chief Minister’s knowledge of Tennant Creek and the Barkly, so I thought I would come here with an idea.
Chief Minister, you have new cash to splash around, you have given a commitment to Tennant Creek, and I will tell you what we need immediately. We need to look at the situation where the fantastic company, Hardy Aviation, running Fly Tiwi two days a week between Darwin and Tennant Creek, is now looking on hard times. This is a regular passenger transport service, an aviation service that has linked Tennant Creek to Darwin. It went from two days a week to three days a week. The Hardy company was fabulous in its push to develop this service. It took many risks and has been operating on very small margins.
It reflected the previous Labor government’s record infrastructure investment in the region, that SIHIP was spending $36m-plus, plus extra millions on the civil works of the Tennant Creek town community living areas in partnership with Julalikari Aboriginal Council, and a proactive government policy that said to public sector officials, ‘If you are doing business in Darwin you will catch the plane. You will not drive to Alice Springs to catch the plane, you will get on the plane in Tennant Creek.’
It looks like Hardy Aviation has run into hard times under the Country Liberal Party policy settings that have slashed infrastructure budgets, destroyed consumer confidence, destroyed business confidence in the regions so people are hurting. We need some help.
I have advised people in Tennant Creek of the subsidies provided by the Country Liberal Party government for the Tiwi ferry. The Labor government did it, so I know the figures around this. I am having a punt, but I believe it is about $3000 a month the CLP government is subsidising the Tiwi ferry. The people of Tennant Creek and the Barkly believe we are equally as isolated over land, and would really like the Northern Territory government, and Chief Minister Adam Giles, to do something about this situation developing for Hardy Aviation. Come on, Chief Minister. Let us see some of your cash. Let us see what you can do by talking with Hardy Aviation about the continuation of Fly Tiwi into Tennant Creek. From two days a week it went to three days a week, under the Country Liberal Party it has gone back to two days a week and looks like we might lose it.
Fair is fair. I support the Tiwi ferry and the Tiwi. However, it is a good example of where Chief Minister Adam Giles can put his money where his mouth is, drop the rhetoric and all the other slagging he does in the media release about me as the local member for the past five years - four in government, one in opposition. Drop all that and let us get real. Come to the table, Chief Minster. Let us do it through your Office of the Chief Minister in Tennant Creek. Do whatever you like, but put your money where you mouth is because we will be seriously hurt.
Tennant Creek is on the edge of a boom. We heard it in the mining statement, in the regional opportunities coming from that central part of the Territory. This air service is very important to keep us connected. It is also important for health patients referred to Royal Darwin Hospital. When health patients started using the Fly Tiwi service, it put the edge on it with that customer base. There are existing systems that can support this and make it work.
Chief Minister, we need your help. We need you to come back to Tennant Creek. You can forget the cucumber sandwiches. Come back with the cheque book and talk to your delegate in the Chief Minister’s Office to get around the table with Hardy Aviation and ensure we do not lose the Fly Tiwi service.
I do not want to go down the road of the member for Namatjira who was quoted on radio as saying:
- Look, Aboriginal people want little things. I can tell something: my people are the cheapest voters. They are not looking for $20m or even $10m, they just want $10 000 or $5000, the $2500 for their sports weekend. You will have them for life. I think we have not done that. We have not done that well. I think a classic example is the story in the Advocate written about Congress giving Yuendumu sports weekend $3000. It swung for Labor just on $3000. Like I said, my people are the cheapest voters.
Madam Speaker, I do not say the people of the Barkly are the cheapest voters. We are about pragmatic initiatives. We want investment in the regions. Chief Minister, do not take advice for the member for Namatjira, take advice from me.
Mr KURRUPUWU (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I speak on the Tiwi ferry. Monday, 23 September 2013, was a wonderful day for Tiwi people, the people of the Territory, and for the many tourists from around the world who come to the great Tiwi Islands to visit the Tiwi people and share in our culture.
I thank very much Chief Minister Adam Giles, minister Styles, and the Country Liberal government for the foresight and confidence they have shown in bringing back our Tiwi ferry. I also thank the public servants and staff of SeaLink who have worked tirelessly to make our dream come true.
We lost the ferry and the Tiwi were left stranded by the previous Labor government due to their mismanagement of the previous ferry arrangement. Management by Labor of the previous ferry arrangement was an absolute shambles. This mismanagement had major negative effects for the Tiwi people. As a result, the key economic enterprises on the Tiwi Island such as Tiwi Tours and the art and craft centre were forced to close. This damaged the employment and income of many Tiwi. In addition, many Tiwi were unable to connect with Tiwi in Darwin and the Territory community, to visit family and friends, or to attend important functions. Many could not afford other means of transport.
While the previous Labor government was forced by the Country Liberals to have a trial run of the ferry in 2012, this was far too short and did not give a clear indication of viability of the service. The Country Liberals government and the Tiwi wish to ensure the trial is done correctly and efficiently, and I am sure we can all have confidence in SeaLink to achieve this for us.
We can now expect far larger numbers of tourists to travel to the Tiwi Islands with important economic benefit for Tiwi people. It will also enable the Tiwi to have access to specialised professional services that were not available. Our people do not want to remain on welfare handout. We have always valued enterprise and have a long history of trading commercially with nearby Asian people. It is part of our culture and a key part of our heritage. This ferry will provide opportunity for increased Tiwi employment and enterprise in areas such as Tiwi Tours, art and craft galleries, increased visits by tourists with the opportunity to stay overnight in newly constructed accommodation facilities, and major events such as Tiwi Grand Final and Milimika Festival.
Madam Speaker, far too much dependence on government has taken away our freedom to make decisions that benefit our people. We need to target the blockages that stop our human development. This wonderful ferry will assist overcoming such a blockage. This ferry is very important symbol of what the Tiwi want, and what the Country Liberal Party wants, for the future of the people of the Northern Territory. It is a future of shared responsibility where the Tiwi can enjoy respect through enterprise and hard work by allowing us to connect and work more closely with wider organisations, institutions, enterprises in the Territory, and wider society.
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, in this adjournment debate tonight I applaud the outstanding efforts of Satellite City BMX Club in Palmerston which hosted the Northern Territory BMX Titles last weekend. They did an outstanding job. I was impressed, not only with their facility and the upkeep and obvious love and care their volunteers put into their establishment, but the sheer organisation and scale of the entire event.
This event attracted riders from all over the NT and Australia. The Red Centre BMX Club had people racing, along with Nhulunbuy BMX Club, Jingili BMX Club and, of course, Palmerston Satellite City BMX Club.
I thought it very appropriate for me to mention everyone on the Satellite City BMX Club Committee and thank and acknowledge them for their contribution to this important sport and important part of our community.
I thank Ian Redding, who is the President of the Club; Adrian van Cuylenburg who is the Vice President; Heather van Anholt, Treasurer; Rachel Walker, Secretary; Yeni Redding, Registrar - I see Yeni a lot in my electorate office; almost all of the photocopying for the Satellite City BMX Club is courtesy of the Drysdale electorate office. We do that very proudly, it is all going to a very good cause – Ryan Campbell, Track Manager; Kate Beadman, Canteen Manager; Karlie Patrick, General Committee; Myrna Diamond, General Committee; Kerry Mitchell, General Committee; Steve van Anholt, General Committee; Tara Rowlands, General Committee; Terri van Cuylenburg, General Committee; and the lovely Andrea Campbell who is on the Fundraising Committee.
I spent a couple of hours with Andrea last week helping to sell raffle tickets to raise much-needed funds for their BMX club. It was fantastic. I was blown away by the number of parents, friends, family, and BMX enthusiasts who came down and filled the lawns and the hill at Satellite City. We sold an absolute bomb of raffle tickets and I am pleased the community pitched in and helped raise that money. I do not have an exhaustive list of the raffle sponsors, but I would like to thank Spokes NT which donated the major prize - a BMX bike or GT up to the value of $1500. That helped anchor in patrons at the BMX to want to purchase raffle tickets. So, thank you very much for the enormous contribution. I believe Spokes NT is an avid supporter of our BMX clubs in the Northern Territory.
Also, thank you to AAT Kings Tours who donated a couple of lovely tours. The Litchfield bus tour was one many of the mums were very keen on winning. Planning ahead, they could see a beautiful day out with their family. So, thank you for that.
I also thank Bunnings for donating the barbecue, and also to The Precinct for the $250 meal and drink voucher they donated. Thank you to all the other sponsors whose names I do not have.
I was very fortunate to present the Volunteer of the Year Awards. Deserving Yeni Redding took out the Volunteer of the Year for Satellite City BMX Club. She is an amazing woman, always smiling, always with her shoulder to the wheel. It is not suspicious that she is married to the club president. That is not why she got the award; she deserved it. It was lovely to see her club recognise her for all of the hard work she does.
From the Red Centre BMX Club Maree Hayes was selected by the Club to receive the Volunteer of the Year Award, and well done to her. From Nhulunbuy BMX Club David Brine received that accolade, and from Jingili BMX Club Leanne Browne received their Volunteer of the Year Award. Well done to all of them.
With our committees, clubs, and organisations volunteers are the backbone. Without them we have nothing. It is wonderful that at special occasions and at huge meets like the titles, we can recognise these people publically and give them our biggest and greatest thanks.
I was also able to present title awards for people who participated in NT Titles for five years and for 10 years. Those awardees were Cameron Dubbeld, Josh Ham, Matt Ellison, Jessy Browne, Jole Mitchell, Tahyla Maurice, Matthew Maurice, Anne Yuke, Shane Greening, Callum Dubbeld, Caitlin Jong, Liam Jong, Rebekkha Chiam, Leon Barbour, Marcus Cohen, and Kaitlyn Creber. There was one other little fellow who received an award and we are yet to track his name down, so watch this space for that one.
I also congratulate Tahlya Maurice who is from Jingili BMX Club. She took out first place for the Pro Open Women. That is fantastic. Well done, Tahlya. I am exceedingly in awe of you winning this. I would not be game to hit that track, but it is a fantastic facility and you did very well. No doubt Jingili Club is exceedingly proud of you. Also Matthew Juster, from West Side BMX Club in Western Australia, took out No 1 for the Pro Open Men.
Overall, Satellite City BMX Club was impressed with the results they obtained. They are exceptionally proud of their performance. I echo that it was very well organised. The committee had cohesion; they knew what was going on. They knew the patrons and all the riders. It was an exceptional job.
There was an overwhelming number of riders between the ages of eight and 12, which is fantastic. If you have not seen a tiny boy or girl dressed up in Fox riding gear with their cute little pink or blue riding helmet and their little bike, it is a must see. It was very gorgeous. They were so enthusiastic and starry-eyed, and had a lot of fun, which is the main thing.
The Satellite City BMX Club also made history with these titles because they were the first club to host the pro section and have more than 300 riders compete in that series. It was officially the biggest titles ever held in the Northern Territory, which is extremely impressive. It goes to show how much hard work the committee put in and the results they yielded from it.
Unfortunately, on Wednesday night there was an accident during the men’s pre-meet. It was a terrible one. I thank St John Ambulance for their very quick response attending to the gentleman. He was taken to Royal Darwin Hospital and I wish him a very speedy recovery.
I also thank Karen from Crazy Acres. For those of you who do not know Crazy Acres, it is a wonderful farm at Berry Springs. Karen has been focusing her farm energies on producing a very high-quality ice cream line. She kept everyone very happy at the titles with her ice cream truck. Even though Satellite City attracts a beautiful breeze, particularly as the sun goes down, it was very refreshing to have ice cream made from local produce; that is, homegrown limes, banana, honey, passionfruit, and mango. It was even more refreshing to read the back of the packet for the ingredients in the ice cream which were milk, cream and fruit. Well done to Karen. You are always a laugh, a great woman to catch up with, a great Territory business. Thank you also for supporting Satellite City.
Madam Speaker, I look forward to future meets and the ongoing success of this very special club.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, I speak tonight about a few netball events that have recently taken place, the most recent one being the NT Link Netball Championship, which is the annual NT titles. It is a great tradition in the Territory and one that I, as a junior, attended. I played in the Under 15s and in the opens. It was a great tournament to be able to go away, play some good netball up against the best netballers in the Territory, but also prepare yourself for when you earned selection for the Territory to go away to nationals, to have a go at being in a tournament, and seeing what the wear and tear is like on your body, having to bat yourself up game after game.
We have just hosted a terrific tournament here. We had teams up from Alice Springs, Katherine, had teams in from Palmerston, and also had teams from Singapore and many players from Kununurra. There was a bit of a joke going around the championships that we did not think there were any young ladies left in Kununurra over that weekend because they all seemed to be in Darwin.
I have to say a huge thank you to Tony Smith of NT Link who is a celebrity around netball circles now because he has been a long and lasting supporter of netball in the Territory. We are extremely grateful for his support and everything he puts into it. Without sponsors like Tony, putting these type of events together would be so much harder. It was great to have him on board this year, and he seems set to come back again next year.
It was also the last NT Link Netball Championships for our current Netball NT President, Helen Smith. Helen Smith has been around netball in the Territory forever. I cannot imagine netball here without Helen. She was a long-serving Darwin Netball Association President and she has been in the role as President of Netball NT for a very long time. However, she has decided at the end of the year she will step down from the position. We are going to have a new president. They will have extremely big shoes to fill, but I am sure Helen will still be around to give a bit of guidance while they get used to the job. It was an emotional time for her, particularly at the closing ceremony, because she is passionate about netball. She has given a lot to it for a very long time. It will be great to still have her around the courts because she is a true part of the netball community.
I place on the record congratulations to the winners of each division. For the Open Division, we had a great game with Darwin playing Alice Springs. Darwin defeated Alice Springs in that game. The best on court for the grand final was Siobhan Sefton from Darwin. She was also the most valuable player for the Open Division tournament. Siobhan Sefton usually plays for the Tracy Village Falcons in the Darwin competition.
In the 17 and Under Division, Darwin defeated Alice Springs. That is always a very hotly contested division with the young girls. The best on court for the grand final was Lisa Roscarel from Darwin, and the most valuable player for the tournament for the 17 and Under Division was Gemma Henderson from Darwin.
In the 15 and Under Division, Darwin defeated Singapore. The best on court for that grand final was Georgia Clark of Darwin, and the most valuable player was Grace Hill from Singapore.
In the 13 and Under Division, Alice Springs defeated Palmerston. The best on court for the grand final was Courtney Summers of Alice Springs, and Courtney was also the most valuable player for the tournament.
Overall, an award is given over the weekend for the best player of the tournament. They look at each division when awarding this. That went to Gemma Henderson from the Darwin 17 and Under Division. Congratulations, Gemma.
It is always important to have strong umpires in any sporting association. Without umpires, games simply do not happen and it would not be the same. It is important they are acknowledged for their contribution. A Spirit of Umpiring award was given at the NT Link Championships for not only the effort of the umpire of the championship weekend, but for their contribution to their home association within Netball NT. The Spirit of Umpiring award this year went to Andrea Read from Katherine. Congratulations Andrea.
A big congratulations to Rob Honan and Toni Osborne from the office of Netball NT for all their hard work getting this together. Also to Thea Pearce, the Umpiring Coordinator; President, Helen Smith, of course; Darwin Netball Association President, Sandy Macintosh, and all the people from the associations across the Northern Territory, from Kununurra and Singapore, who put the time in to bring the teams together so everybody could enjoy this tournament and get some great game and match experience and become, ultimately, better netballers. It was wonderful.
Locally, the Darwin Netball Association season wrapped up about three or four weeks ago. It was a very successful season to say the least. You can see the strength of the association growing each year at both the senior and junior level. The car park is packed every Wednesday and Thursday night. There is no doubt in Darwin and Palmerston netball is one of the most played sports.
Many people would have been down to the courts at some time in their life to watch somebody play netball. It is terrific there at the moment. There is a really good vibe around netball, and much of that has to do with the people who volunteer at the clubs. We have many strong clubs at the moment. Every now and then one club might look a bit weak and look like it will fold, but every club in the association looks like it is going strong at the moment, and that is great.
The competition has a very hard-working management team and I congratulate them on their hard work. They are Sandy Macintosh, President; Julie Furlan, Jo Barker, Linda Parnhem, Natashs McCrae, Wendy Manolis and Teuila Te Aho, who does the administration for the association. As an ex-player, she knows the requirements of the clubs and does a terrific job.
I recently had the fun job of organising and emceeing the Most Valuable Player Award Night for the association where we all got together at Cazalys in Palmerston. That was one of the most difficult crowds to control I have ever faced. It was a good fun night, but the ladies were having a very good time.
I have to say winning an award for the most valuable player in the divisions is pretty special because every division has between eight and 10 teams. That means you are, effectively, up against 100 different players to win one of these awards. You have to poll votes consistently to be in the running. Well done to the following players for Division 4: the runner-up was Richelle Smith from Hoggies, the winner was Jade Fejo from Palmerston. In Division 3, the runner-up was Kiteni Holt from Hoggies, the winner was jointly shared by Sarah Durwood-Brown from Waratahs and Lauren McElroy from Hoggies. In Division 2 the runner-up was Makere Keire from Hoggies, and the winner was Taylor O’Dea from Waratahs. Division 1 runner-up was Renae Rograch from Hoggies, and the winner was Roxy Morton-Owen from Northern Districts. A Reserve runners-up were Alex Cannon from Waratahs and Anne Knight from Hoggies, and the winner was Kristen Smits from Hoggies. In A Grade, the runners-up were Anna Hales from Northern Districts and Siobhan Sefton from Tracy Village Falcons, and the winner was Chrissy Hurst from Tracy Village Falcons. The Falcons also took out the A Grade competition.
In wrapping up, I pay tribute to the umpires of the association. We cannot do it without you. I particularly acknowledge the umpires from the grand final who were Kylie Bell and Elice Crisp. They are fantastic umpires with long histories umpiring across the Territory. I thought they did a great job in the grand final this year, and in the grand final last year. I saw them umpire very well through the NT Links Championship. We cannot do it without them. Overall, the umpiring has been outstanding across the association this year and we saw some real improvements.
The reasons behind that were because of Linda Parnhem, the Umpiring Coordinator and her tireless work. Establishing an umpiring panel has gone a long way, as well as the clubs’ efforts to get on board some regular umpires and back and support them to help develop their umpiring aspirations. Overall, it is making for a far better competition. Congratulations to everybody involved in the DNA season this year. I am looking forward to a huge season next year.
Madam Speaker, well done to everybody involved in the NT Link Netball Championships.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I advise the House of the recent Greek Glenti Festival that occurred in Darwin on The Esplanade. This was the culmination of 25 years of Glentis. It was bigger and better than the rest. Of course, when you achieve a quarter of a century it is something to celebrate.
The event has become a regular staple in the Darwin Dry Season event calendar, one of our major tourist attractions up there with the V8s and India@Mindil, and is one of the largest events. It runs over the long weekend in June where you find the Greek community preparing a week before. If you go to the Greek School in Nightcliff and the Kalymnian Hall you will see many people very busy cooking all sorts of food and preparing for the Glenti. There is a lot of work that goes on at The Esplanade to set-up prior to the two-day event.
It is a great favourite community event amongst families, tourists, and locals alike. I learnt this year that there are literally hundreds and hundreds of Greeks from around the country come to our Glenti, not only to attend but also to help. Of course, there are all the people who, for whatever reason, are part of Greek families in Darwin or were born in Darwin and who have to go away to pursue careers or education, and you see them returning in their hundreds to help out their families and their various communities raise money.
As I said, celebrating the 25th year this year is simply a great coup for the committee which has staged this event every year. The steering committee needs to be acknowledged for its work. This is the Greek Orthodox Community of the Northern Territory in Australia, and the mainstay of that committee are Lilliane Gomatos, John Nicolakis and Nik Poniris. I must add that Lilliane Gomatos was the president of the organising committee for the first Glenti and, 25 years later, she is still there, working hard, raising money for charity and for the Greek organisations that are represented. As well, they support the associated clubs and, without their hard work and commitment to this festival, it would not be what it is today.
It is with great joy that I say that 25 years ago I attended the very first Greek Glenti in 1998 with my young family. I remember what a fantastic event it was. If you had not tasted Greek delights in your life, there was an opportunity at the Glenti to do so. For many years, I went along and, as I got to know many of the people around Darwin in my capacity as a police officer and a community police officer, I ended up volunteering at the Glenti. I think I had more fun volunteering than I did attending. I must say the Greeks are very hospitable people who have all this fantastic, tasty food. Volunteers, apart from working hard all day, helping serve drinks and keeping the people hydrated, are fed as well. I must say it was a great pleasure to be there again this year helping out in the bars.
I have seen it grow from its humble beginnings of a few blue tarps strung on a few poles to what we see there today, with a very professional set-up with plenty of shade for people, plenty of tables and chairs, and the fantastic entertainment. Greek bands come from Melbourne and Sydney and what a performance they put on. Of course, no Greek festival would be complete without about 20 or 30 different versions of Zorba the Greek.
It is such an achievement of this steering committee and the Greek community as a whole that this event has continued all these years, and not only survived but grown enormously. One of the most interesting facts from the event and a different way of marking just how much this has grown, is the amount of food that is catered each year. I went to the Greek School and watched them make many things I cannot even pronounce. Whilst I was there, I put some gloves and headgear on and participated in making some of these things. Mind you, we ate a few of them as a reward. They were very tasty. Of course, one should taste them to make sure they are all right for the Glenti.
They started the event all those years ago with 100 kg of octopus. When you see 100 kg of octopus, it is a fair amount. It has now grown to more than three tonne of octopus. That gives you some idea of how the crowd has grown and how people have just flocked to get some of these Greek delights.
It is also important to realise how much work and love goes into this event. It is a testament to why it is such a success. Greek Glenti is a non-profit ethnic event from which all nett profits are disbursed throughout the wider community in areas such as sports, education, aged care, culture, and children’s charity. This year, the charity the Glenti workers worked towards was Give me Five for Kids. This is a fundraising initiative dedicated to raising much-needed funds for local community hospitals. All donations received stayed local and went directly to the children’s ward in each market to help provide the best possible care for sick local children and their families when they most need it. The event was helped by $40 000 funding provided under the Multicultural Affairs sponsorship, and an additional $85 000 through the Community Sports Grants.
Highlights were the Greek music and Greek food. Both the young and old were catered for in the entertainment: Dora the Explorer, Sponge Bob, olive spitting, plate breaking, traditional dancing and entertainment including Zorba Brothers, and lots of partying as well with both interstate and local performers.
A highlight for me was I got to have a long chat with Effie the Greek. For those who watch television, Effie was on one of those Greek comedy shows. I have to say she is as funny off screen as she is on screen. We sat at the back and I left with a few damaged ribs from laughing so much.
There was fun had by all, of course. When you sit back and take a break from helping run those events, you get to see just how much fun people are having. It was great to see tourist getting there and having a go at Zorba the Greek. It is great when they start, but the problem is they crank the music up and it ends up running flat out. It is interesting watching people trying to catch up with the beat of the music.
The event is a major tourist attraction. When I talk to people and they ask when it is a good time to come up, I say to come up and start with the Greek Glenti. If they cannot get up before that is fine, but they should come up here and do the racing carnival, the V8s, and generally have a great time. It is from these events we get the tourist numbers. That helps all of us with jobs and money going into our economy.
Although organised by the Greek Glenti Committee of the Greek Orthodox Community of Northern Australia, the associated clubs that provide support through their volunteers include the Hellenic Macedonian Association, the Greek School, and their associated football clubs. It is great to have their support because, without it, the Glenti would not exist. Glenti is about sharing their culture with the wider community, and we here in the Territory know how to do that.
Madam Speaker, I must give wholehearted congratulations to everyone involved in this year’s Greek Glenti, and also to those who built the Glenti in previous years. In the 25th year, it was a fantastic event, well organised, well presented and well patronised by locals and visitors alike. It is always a stand-out event and one to be very proud of. I take this opportunity on behalf of the Northern Territory government and the wider community in the Northern Territory to thank the Greek community for a fantastic effort, for working hard, for what they do for children’s charities and their sporting groups and other beneficiaries of the money raised at the Glenti that goes around the Territory. Congratulations to all of them!
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016